EPA-450/3-74-029
December 1973
COST OF MONITORING
AIR QUALITY IN THE
UNITED STATES
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Water Programs
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
-------
EPA-450/3-74-029
COST OF MONITORING
AIR QUALITY IN THE
UNITED STATES
by
A. K. Miedema, C. E. Decker
F. Smith, and J. White
Research Triangle Institute
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
Contract No. 68-02-1096
Task No. 3 .
Program Element No. 2 AH 137
EPA Project Officer: Harold G. Richter
Prepared for
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Water Programs
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Traingle Park, N. C. 27711
December 1973
-------
This report is issued by the Environmental Protection Agency to report technical
data of interest to a limited number of readers. Copies are available free of charge
to Federal employees, current contractors and grantees, and nonprofit organizations-
as supplies permit - from the Air Pollution Technical Information Center, Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, or from
the National Technical Information Service 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield,
Virginia 22151.
This report was furnished to the Environmental Protection Agency by the Research
Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina in fulfillment of
Contract No. 68-02-1096. The contents of this report are reproduced herein as
received from the Research Triangle Institute. The opinions, findings, and conclu-
sions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Environmental
Protection Agency. Mention of company or product names is not to be considered as an
endorsement by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Publication No. EPA-450/3-74-029
11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
1: INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 General Approach 3
1.3 Summary of Findings 4
2: ESTIMATION OF AIR QUALITY MONITORING NETWORK
COST FACTORS . 6
2.1 Instrument Purchase, Operating, and
Maintenance Costs 6
2.1.1 Cost Categories 6
2.1.1.1 Capital Costs 7
2.1.1.2 Normal Operating Costs 7
2.1.1.3 Maintenance and Repair Costs 7
2.1.1.4 Supervision and Quality Control . . 7
2.1.2 Particulate Matter High Volume Sampler 8
2.1.3 Particulate Tape Sampler 10
2.1.4 S02 Gas Bubbler Sampler 10
2.1.5 SOp Continuous Sampler 12
2.1.6 CO Continuous Sampler 15
2.1.7 Continuous Ozone Sampler 15
2.1.8 N02 Gas Bubbler Sampler 17
2.1.9 N02 Continuous Sampler 17
2.2- Other Air Quality Monitoring Network Costs ....... 17
2.2.1 Instrument Housing 17
2.2.2 Data Processing Costs 22
2.2.3 Travel Costs 22
2.2.4 System Set-up Costs . . . 22
2.2.5 Equipment Replacement Costs 23
2.3 Summary 24
3: AGGREGATE AIR QUALITY MONITORING COST ESTIMATES 25
3.1 Monitoring Instruments and Sites, by State 25
3.1.1 Total Required, Proposed, and Existing
Instruments 25
3.1.2 Assumed Site Configurations 26
3.2 Instrument Specific Air Monitoring Cost Estimates,
by State 34
3.3 Aggregate National Air Monitoring Cost Estimates .... 49
i i i
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Copt'd)
Chapter Page
4: TELEMETRIC, NONTELEMETRIC AND PORTABLE AIR QUALITY
MONITORING NETWORKS 58
4.1 Introduction 58
4.1.1 Nontelemetric Systems 58
4.1.2 Telemetric Systems 61
4.1.3 Station Portability 65
4.2 Cost Analyses. 67
4.2.1 Sources of Data and Assumptions 67
4.2.2 Nontelemetric Data Acquisition Systems 74
4.2.2.1 Initial Installation and Incremental
Expansion Costs .75
4.2.2.2 Personnel and Operating Costs 75
4.2.2.3 Total Average Annual Costs 75
4.2.2.4 Reliability of Existing Systems 79
4.2.3 Telemetric Systems 81
4.2.3.1 Initial Installation and Incremental
Expansion Costs 81
4.2.3.2 Personnel and Operating Costs 81
4.2.3.3 Total Average Annual Costs 81
4.2.3.4 Reliability of Existing Costs 81
4.2.4 Portable/Mobile Station Costs 81
4.2.4.1 Portable Station 82
4.2.4.2 Mobile Stations 82
5: BIBLIOGRAPHY 83
Appendix
A: FEDERAL AIR QUALITY SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENTS 85
IV
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure ' Page
4-1 Block diagram of a data logger type data
acquisition system 59
4-2 Block diagram of telemetry type data acquisition
system 63
4-3 Typical installation of portable shelters
on skids 66
4-4 Installation cost of a network as a function of
the number of stations (L) and the number of
samplers (S) . . . 76
4-5 Average annual operating costs of a network as
a function of the number of stations (L) and
the number of samplers (S) '. . . . . 77
4-6 Total average annual cost of a network as a
function of the number of stations (L) and the
number of samplers (S) 78
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1-1 Nationwide Summary of State Monitoring Inventories
as Reported in State Implementation Plans (SIP's) .... 3
2-1 Par-ticulate Matter High Volume Sampler—Purchase,
Operating, and Maintenance Costs 9
2-2 Particulate Tape Sampler—Purchase, Operating, and
Maintenance Costs 11
2-3 S02 Gas Bubbler Sampler—Purchase, Operating, and
Maintenance Costs 13
2-4 S02 Continuous Sampler—Purchase, Operating, and
Maintenance Costs 14
2-5 CO Continuous Sampler—Purchase, Operating, and
Maintenance Costs 16
2-6 Continuous Ozone Sampler--Purchase, Operating, and
Maintenance Costs 18
2-7 N02 Gas Bubbler Sampler—Purchase, Operating, and
Maintenance Costs 19
2-8 N02 Continuous Sampler—Purchase, Operating, and
Maintenance Costs 20
3-1 Number of Existing and Projected Air Quality Moni-
toring Instruments and Sites as Required of and
Proposed by Individual States 27
3-2 Estimated Initial Purchase and Annual Operating
Costs of Air Sampling Instruments, by Type 35
3-3 Estimated Capital Requirements and Annualized Costs
of Implementing Federal Air Quality Monitoring
System Requirements 50
3-4 Estimated Capital Requirements and Annualized Costs
of Implementing State Proposed Air Quality Monitoring
Systems 54
4-1 Performance Parameters 62
4-2 Summary of Network Configurations and Assumptions .... 69
VI
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
4-3 Summary Cost Data 70
4-4 Operational Summary of Ambient Air Analyzers 80
A-l Air Quality Surveillance System Measurement,
Sampling, and Site Requirements 85
-------
COST OF MONITORING AIR QUALITY IN THE UNITED STATES
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
m
The purpose of this report is to present the best available
estimates of the costs of monitoring ambient air quality in the
United States. The costs estimated herein include not only projected
expenditures for air sampling instruments but also those for sampling
site operation, maintenance, and instrument replacement. Estimates
are presented for each State and U.S. territory on the basis of two
sets of projected demand. One is based on the minimum requirements
of Federal regulations, and the other on systems proposed by the
States themselves.
1.1 Background
The setting of national air quality standards pursuant to the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970 (hereafter the Act) set the stage
for national air monitoring requirements. Section 109 of the Act
(P.L. 91-604, December 31, 1970) required the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to propose national primary
and secondary ambient air quality standards for each air pollutant
for which air quality criteria had been issued prior December 31,
1970. Those air pollutants included sulfur oxides (SO ), particulate
A
matter (PM), carbon monoxide (CO), photochemical oxidants (0 ),
/\
hydrocarbons (HC), and nitrogen dioxide (N02). On April 30, 1971,
the proposed standards were promulgated by the Administrator of the
EPA in the Federal Register (42 CFR 410).
The Act delegated the primary responsibility for the prevention
and control of air pollution to the State and local governments.
Section 110 of the Act required each State to submit to the EPA an
implementation plan whose general purpose was to describe the methods
to be used by each State in implementing, maintaining, and enforcing
the promulgated air quality standards. That section specifically
required that "it [the implementation plan] include provision for
the establishment and operation of appropriate devices, methods,
systems, and procedures necessary to (i) monitor, compile, and
analyze data on ambient air quality, and (ii) upon request, make
such data available to the Administrator."
1
-------
Under his regulation-making authority, the Administrator of EPA
promulgated regulations for the preparation, adoption, and submittal
of those implementation plans. The regulations, published on
August 14, 1971, in the Federal Register (42 CFR 420), include
minimum requirements on the number of air quality monitoring instru-
ments that had to be proposed for the measurement of ambient
concentrations of each pollutant. The minimum requirements (see
appendix A) vary according to the priority classification of the
identified air quality control regions within the States. The
priority classifications (I, II, or III) are based on "measured
ambient air quality, where known, or, where not known, estimated air
quality in the area of maximum pollutant concentration."* Within
the most polluted regions (priority I), the required number of stations
for each pollutant varies according to population.**
In addition, the implementation plans were required to "provide
for the establishment of an air quality surveillance system which
shall be completed and in operation ... not later than two years
after the date of the Administrator's approval of the plan." This
effectively requires operational monitoring systems by mid-1974. In
the November 25, 1971, issue of the Federal Register (40 CFR 50), the
Administrator of the EPA issued a detailed listing of the reference
methods for the measurement of ambient pollutant concentrations.
These reference methods or their equivalents are acceptable for the
purpose of meeting the implementation plan requirements.
The approved State implementation plans (SIP's) included an
inventory report on the number and type of stations that are currently
in operation in each region. Furthermore, they included the number
of air quality monitoring instruments of each type that are proposed
to meet the requirements of the Act. A summary of those data and
of the required number of stations are reported on an aggregate
nationwide basis in Table 1-1.
* Federal Register (42 CFR 420), August, 1971, §420.3.
** ibid.. §420.17.
-------
Table 1-1. NATIONWIDE SUMMARY OF STATE MONITORING INVENTORIES
AS REPORTED IN STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS (SIP'S)
Number of monitors
Pollutant/Method
PM/tape
PM/Hi-vol
SOo/continuous
S02/bubbler
0 /continuous
A
CO/continuous
NO^/continuous
N02/bubbler
Total
1971
Existing
397
2,538
329
541
183
197
118
370
4,673
1974
Proposed
901
3,511
698
1,431
458
457
314
876
8,646
Legal
requirement
497
1,366
213
666
208
133
0
425
3,508
Percent
increase*
127
38
112
164
150
132
166
136
85
*1974 Proposed/1971 Existing.
Source: Environmental Protection Agency.
1.2 General Approach
The first step in the analysis was to identify the purchase,
operating, and maintenance costs associated with each sampling
instrument. These estimates were based on the assumption that each
State collected the minimum number of samples required by the EPA
(see appendix A). Section 2.1 of chapter 2 reports those estimates
along with a brief discussion of the assumptions regarding individual
cost parameters.
Section 2.2 in chapter 2 indicates other air monitoring network
costs that were not directly assignable to the operation of specific
instruments. These include shelter construction and site maintenance
costs, data processing costs, transportation costs, system design and
administration costs, and equipment replacement costs.
Chapter 3 indicates the method used to compute air quality
monitoring costs among States from the cost factors estimated in
chapter 2. Also, the final cost estimates are reported there
-------
according to state and for the nation. These costs are estimated
for both the state-proposed and the federally required network of
monitoring instruments, taking into account existing instruments.
In chapter 4, two topics of special interest are addressed:
cost and operating characteristics of both telemetric and portable
air quality monitoring instrumentation. Because of the need for
current data on all alternative air quality monitoring systems, RTI
conducted personal interviews with air pollution control agency
personnel in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and Chattanooga, Tennessee,
and telephone interviews with other local agency personnel regarding
the automated air quality reporting systems installed in those regions.
Since they are relatively new systems, the cost data are thought to
be quite accurate. Further information on portable monitoring sites
was gathered from these agencies and from RTI field applications
of air quality monitoring technology. The results of these analyses
are discussed generally in chapter 4. No attempt is made there to
supplement the cost estimates of chapter 3. The cost factors provided
there are, however, reasonable inputs for an analysis of alternative
air quality monitoring systems in selected regions.
1.3 Summary of Findings
Two sets of aggregate national air quality monitoring costs were
estimated. The first set projects the costs of implementing the
minimum federal air quality surveillance requirements (see Appendix A).
The costs of this required network are reported in Table 3-3. It is
estimated that an incremental capital outlay of about $3.2 million
will be necessary to complement already existing instruments if
such a network is to become operative in 1974. The annualized
cost of operating such a network, once completed, is estimated at
$12.8 million.
The networks separately proposed by the states are substantially
larger and more expensive than the minimum federal requirements
dictate. It is estimated that the state-proposed networks will
require an incremental capital outlay of $12.6 million to complement
existing networks. The corresponding, nationally aggregated estimate
of the annual cost of operating the state-proposed networks is $36.9
million. In other words, the proposed systems would be about three
-------
times as costly as those systems which meet the minimum federal
requirements.
The analyses of portable and automated air quality monitoring
stations indicate that telemetric networks are less costly than a
data logging system (one which involves the recording of air quality
data on magnetic tape and transferring it to a central station for
processing). The difference in costs between these two systems
becomes larger as either the number of samplers per station or the
number of remote stations increases. Finally, with respect to
portable stations, it was determined that considerable monitoring
flexibility can be offered by portable sampling stations with a modest
increment in initial capital outlays.
-------
CHAPTER 2: ESTIMATION OF AIR QUALITY MONITORING NETWORK COST FACTORS
Estimating the costs of installing and operating air quality
monitoring instruments requires a detailed understanding of both technical
and economic aspects of instrument design and operation. It is the purpose
of this chapter to provide an overview of those considerations for each
of the eight subject instrument types and for other network costs not
assignable to the installation and operation of particular instruments.
The estimates presented in this chapter are only approximations based
on RTI's best judgement. Despite the fact that some of the estimates,
e.g. labor costs, are imprecise for specific states or locales, it is
felt that, in the aggregate, the cost factors estimated here reflect
reasonably accurate assumptions.
Within the category of instrument related (section 2.1) and other
network related (section 2.2) costs two types of cost items can be
identified: initial capital (investment) requirements and annual costs.
The initial capital requirements can be regarded as the projected
incremental cash outlays that are needed in each state or region to make
the air quality monitoring network operable. In chapter three these
capital requirements are projected separately based on the cost factors
presented here. The alternative cost breakdown, also reported in the
next chapter, gives annual costs. These include both an annualized
portion of capital requirements and other variable costs associated with
the operation and maintenance of an air quality monitoring network. The
methods of computing each of these items are specifically noted in the
following paragraphs.
2.1 Instrument Purchases. Operating, and Maintenance Costs
The major portion of air quality monitoring network costs is related
to the purchase and operation of the, monitoring instruments themselves.
This section first presents an overall discussion of the cost items
associated with each instrument. Then the cost factors estimated for
each instrument are discussed and presented in tables 2-1 through 2-8.
2.1.1 Cost Categories
The cost categories identified for each instrument were
capital costs, normal operating costs, maintenance and repair costs,
and supervision and quality control costs.
-------
2.1.1.1 Capttal Costs. The capital or investment requirements
include the initial purchase cost of the sampling device as well as
the cost of tape readers and strip chart recorders, where appropriate.
Also included are the initial purchase cost of ancillary equipment
such as sampling manifolds, ports, etc. A third category of purchases
included as a capital cost is the investment in instrument calibration
kits, where required. Finally, the costs of time and materials necessary
for equipment installation complete the group of items representing
capital costs. Based on assumptions detailed in succeeding paragraphs,
these capital costs are then amortized to yield an estimate of annual
costs attributable to initial equipment purchases and installation.
2.1.1.2 Normal Operating Costs. Generally, this category of costs
includes all non-maintenance related costs of operating the sampling
devices, collecting the samples (not including travel time and mileage
to and from the site), and analyzing the samples. The major cost
items include: electric power charges; filters, tape, recorder paper,
and reagent costs; calibration and operational checking; sample analysis;
and data reduction. All these costs are variable and are therefore
entered as annual cost items. Hourly labor charges are burdened rates,
i.e. they include an allocation for overhead charges, including facilities
rental costs, salary fringe benefits, etc.*
2.1.1.3 Maintenance and Repair Costs. This category incorporates
estimates of the cost of replacement parts and of time costs for proper
sampler maintenance. These estimates reflect RTI's best judgement of
the basic requirements for implementing good operating practices
within an air quality monitoring network. However, it is recognized
that a substantial degree of variation may occur among individual states
in observing these maintenance practices.
2.1.1.4 Supervision and Quality Control. The final cost category
encompasses the personnel requirements for the supervision of data
handling and for the implementation of a quality control program. The
*The burdened hourly rates used in this report are based on RTI's
experience in operating air quality monitoring instrumentation and on
reference to Richard H. Schulze, "The Economics of Environmental Quality
Measurement," Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, XXIII,
No. 8 (August, 1973), 671-75.
-------
supervision of data handling includes such items as reviewing calculations,
validating data, and preparing periodic data reports for submission to
either the EPA central or regional headquarters. The projected requirements
for quality control checks are based on RTI's experience in operating each
of the instruments to which the discussion now turns.
2.1.2 Particulate Matter High Volume Sampler
The estimated initial cost for a high volume particulate
sampler, including a filter holder, an aluminum shelter and a seven-day
timer is $225. Other initial capital costs include a calibration kit
and installation costs. All together, capital requirements are projected
at $410.
Electricity costs are expected to average $40 annually and sampler
filters are likely to cost about $25 per year, assuming 61 samples are
required annually. Sample analysis costs include time requirements for
screening filters to remove those that are defective, for logging the
filter in and for drying, weighing and identifying it before sending it
to the field, for performing those same operations when it is returned
to the laboratory and for calculating and coding the measured average
particulate concentration over the 24-hour sampling period. Together
these operations are expected to require thirty minutes per sample of
a technician's time. Using the $9/hr. burdened rate yields an estimated
laboratory sample analysis cost of about $275 per year per hi vol sampler.
A third category of costs associated with the operation of a hi vol
included maintenance and repair parts. Sampler maintenance requires the
replacement of brushes about every 25 days of operation as well as instrument
calibration and checks on flow rates. Including two hours per year for
emergency repair time, the requirements for maintenance are expected to be
about 15 hours per year of a technician's time. At the $9 per hour
burdened rate these costs would be about $135 per year. The annual cost of
replacement parts (brushes, motors, etc.) are estimated at 20 percent of
annual operating costs excluding travel costs.
Finally, operating a hi vol sampler requires supervision and quality
control,. Reviewing calculations and validating data for submission to
the appropriate processing center are expected to require approximately
8 hours per year of a supervisor's time or about $160 per year at a $20
8
-------
Table 2-1. PARTICULATE MATTER HIGH VOLUME SAMPLER--
PURCHASE, OPERATING, AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
Investment Annual
I. Capital costs*
High volume sampler with 8"xlO" $225. $ 45.
filter holder, alumninum shelter,
and seven-day timer
Calibration kitt 85. 2.
Installation
Power drop 50. 10.
Labor and stand 50. 10.
II. Normal operating costs
Electric power 40.
Filters 25.
Sampling (20 minutes per sample, 61 183.
samples per year, $9 per hour)
Sample analysis (30 minutes per 275.
sample, 61 samples per year, $9 per
hour)
III. Maintenance and repair
Sampler maintenance (15 hours per 135.
year, $9 per hour)
Replacement parts (20 percent of 105.
costs in II)
IV. Supervision and quality control
Supervise, review» validate and 160.
report data (8 hours per year,
$20 per hour)
Quality control check at stations 144.
8 hours per year, $18 per hour)
Totals $ 410. $1,134.
*Capital costs are amortized over a five-year period in equal
installments.
tCost amortization assumes one kit is required for approximately
every eight high volume samplers.
Source: Research Triangle Institute.
-------
per hour burdened rate. Quality control costs will require about eight
hours of a chemist's time annually to recheck about seven percent of
the samples and to visit each sampler twice a year. Total annual costs
of hi vol operation, reported in Table 2-1, are $1134.
2.1.3 Parti oil ate Tape Sampler
Particulate tape samplers with an automatic spot evaluator
and strip chart recorder cost approximately $1000. In addition to
an estimated $25 for installation the initial installed purchase cost
for this instrument is estimated at $1025 as reported in Table 2-2.
Operating costs include expenditures for electric power, sampler tapes,
and strip chart recorder paper which, given the federal sampling
requirements (Appendix A), are expected to cost $40, $25, and $85 per
year, respectively. Collection of the samples and the installation of
new tapes is projected to require an average of ten minutes per working
day per sampler of a technician's time. Reading the strip charts and
transcribing the particulate concentration data are projected at 364
hours per year per tape sampler. At a burdened hourly rate of $9.00
these personnel operating costs sum to $3666 per year, by far the largest
component of annual costs associated with the particulate tape sampler.
Maintenance and repair costs, including equipment calibration and
replacement parts, are expected to cost $618 per year. Supervision and
quality control are estimated at $360 apiece annually.
The summary data, reported in Table 2-2, indicate an initial capital
requirement of $1025 for each tape sampler and annual operating costs of
$5359.
2.1.4 SOg Gas Bubbler Sampler
The initial purchase cost of an S02 bubbler-type gas sampler
with a shelter and timer was estimated at $400. Without the shelter the
estimated cost was $325. These estimates are based on the current price
lists for a Research Appliance Corporation (RAC) sampler. In addition,
sample tubes, orifice tubes, etc. were estimated to cost $3 per sample
or, since 61 samples are required annually, $183 per year. Incorporating
an estimated $50 for installation costs yields an estimated total initial
outlay of $633 for each new SO^ bubbler sampler.
10
-------
Table 2-2. PARTICULATE TAPE SAMPLER--
PURCHASE, OPERATING, AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
Investment Annual
I. Capital costs*
Tape sampler with reader and $ 1,000. $ 200.
recorder
Installation (assuming preexisting 25. 5.
shelter
II. Normal operating costs
Electric power 40.
Tapes ($2.20 per roll) 25.
Recorder paper ($5.50 per roll) 85.
Sampling (10 minutes per day, 390.
260 days per year, $9 per hour)
Sample analysis (read charts and 3,276.
transcribe data; 364 hours per
year, $9 per hour)
III. Maintenance and repair
Sampler maintenance, calibration, etc. 468.
(52 hours per year, $9 per hour)
Replacement parts 150.
IV. Supervision and quality control
Supervise, review, validate, and report • 360.
data (18 hours per year, $20 per hour)
Quality control (20 hours per year, 360.
$18 per hour)
Totals $ 1,025. $ 5,359.
*Capital costs are amortized over a five-year period in equal
installments.
Source: Research Triangle Institute.
11
-------
Electricity and reagents are expected to cost $90 per year in
operating each S(L bubbler. Personnel requirements include sample
pick-up, analysts, and data recording. Together these activities will
-4?equ4-iee-aboti-t--fifty-nn'mites per sample, on the average. Given the
necessary skill requirements, as indicated in Table 2-3, personnel
operating costs will average about $610 per sampler, annually.. The final
item of normal operating costs reflects the postage charge- for mailing
blocks of samples into a central laboratory facility. Thi's cost is
estimated at $1 per sample or $61 per year.
The proper maintenance of an SO- bubbler v/ould require an average
of forty hours of a technician's time annually. At a burdened rate of
$9 per hour this would average $360 per year. The estimated annual cost
of replacement parts is $200. Therefore, the total projected annual
expenditure on maintenance and repair for each SOp bubbler is $560.
Finally, supervision and quality control are expected to cost $720
apiece annually. In aggregating overall cost categories, total annual
costs of SO- bubbler operation are projected at $2887 in Table 2-3.
2.1.5 SO,, Continuous Sampler
Though the number of continuous instruments required of the
States (see Table 1-1) is much smaller than that for mechanized instruments,
the cost of continuous instruments is markedly higher. The initial
installed cost of an SO^ continuous sampler is estimated at $8350.
(Table-. 2-4). This includes an estimated $4200 for a flame photometric total
sulfur analyzer, $1000 for a strip chart recorder, and $800 foV a hydrogen
generator. An SO- calibration system costs approximately $2250; s.ince
it can also be used to calibrate the total oxidant and N02 continuous
analyzers and since it can be moved, though clumsily, from one site to
another, the cost of the calibration systen was annualized by assumnng^
each system is used to calibrate an average of five analyzers, i.ce.
one-fifth of the capital cost is amortized over five years.
The estimated annual cost of electricity and materials for the
operation of an S02 continuous sampler is $150. The personnel costs
for calibration and daily operational checks are estimated under the
assumption that each S02 continuous instrument will require at least
one hour per working day from a technician trained to complete these
12
-------
Table 2-3. S02 GAS BUBBLER SAMPLER-
PURCHASE, OPERATING, AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
Investment Annual
I. Capital costs*
Gas sampler with shelter and
timer.
Sample tubes, orifice tubes,
demistor, filter, and orifices.
Installation
II. Normal operating costs
Electric power
Reagents
Sampling (20 minutes per sample,
61 samples per year, $9 per hour)
Sample analysis (30 minutes per
sample, 61 samples per year, $14
per hour)
Sample block mailing costs (61 samples
per year, $1 per sample)
III. Maintenance and repair
Equipment maintenance (40 hours per
year, $9 per hour)
Replacement parts
IV. Supervision and quality control
Supervise, review, validate and report
data ( 36 hours per year, $20 per hour)
Quality control (40 hours per year,
$18 per hour)
Totals
$ 400.
183.
50.
$ 80
36
10
40.
50.
183.
427.
61.
360.
200.
720.
720.
$ 633.
$ 2,887.
*Capital costs are amortized over a five-year period in equal
installments.
Source: Research Triangle Institute.
13
-------
Table 2-4. S02 CONTINUOUS SAMPLER--
PURCHASE, OPERATING, AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
Investment Annual
I. Capital cost*
Flame photometric total sulfur $ 4,200. $ 840.
analyzer
Strip chart recorder 1,000. 200.
Hydrogen generator 800. 160.
Calibration systemt 2,250. 90.
Installation 100. 20.
II. Normal operating costs
Electric power 50.
Recorder paper 100.
Calibration and daily operational 2,340.
checks (5 hours per week, 260 hours
per year, $9 per hour)
Data reduction (100 hours per year, 800.
$8 per hour)
III. Maintenance and repair
Maintenance (52 hours per year, 520.
$10 per hour)
Replacement parts 400.
IV. Supervision and quality control
Supervise, review, validate, and 1,440.
report data (72 hours per year,
$20 per hour)
Quality control (35.5 hours per year, 640.
$18 per hour)
Totals $ 8,350. $ 7,600.
*Capital costs are amortized over a five-year period in equal
installments.
tAmortization assumes that one calibration system is used for
every five analyzers.
Source: Research Triangle Institute.
14
-------
tasks. At an estimated $9 per hour, these costs are substantial: $2340
per year. The time required to read and transcribe strip chart data is
estimated at 100 hours per year at a burdened rate of $8 per hour.
Together the annual personnel costs of normal S02 continuous analyzer
operation are estimated at $3140.
Maintenance, repair, and replacement parts are projected to cost
$920 annually. The hourly burdened rate for maintenance is estimated at
$10/hour, slightly higher on average than for mechanized samplers, because
it is assumed that a junior engineer is required for the somewhat more
complex maintenance work on continuous instruments. This procedure is
also followed for the remaining continuous instruments discussed in this
report. Supervision and the quality control program are estimated to cost
$2080 annually. In total, the annual costs of SOp continuous analyzer
operation are projected in Table 2-4 at $7600.
2.1.6 CO Continuous Sampler
The CO analyzer and associated capital equipment requirements
are estimated at $5100 in Table 2-5. The major cost element is the
analyzer itself which costs about $3400. Other capital inputs required
are the strip chart recorder at $1000 and accessories, calibration gases,
installation, etc. at $700.
Electricity and supplies for CO sampler operation cost about $200
annually. Calibration and operational checks are not as demanding as
those for some other continuous instruments; together they are estimated
to require three hours per week or $1248 annually. Data reduction time
costs are projected at 100 hours per year at an $8 per hour burdened
rate, or $800 per year.
The maintenance and quality control time requirements for the CO :
analyzer are substantially higher than for the S02 continuous instrument.
Together they are projected at $1000 and $1280 per year, respectively,
resulting in aggregate projected costs of $2280. The other cost items in
categories III and IV project expenditures on replacement parts and :
supervision at $300 arid $1340, respectively.
2.1.7 Continuous Ozone Sampler
The Bendix 8002 chemiluminescent ozone meter costs about $4200.
The costs of accessories, including an ethylene regulator and filters, is
$75. Other capital requirements, i.e., for the strip chart recorder,
calibration system, and installation, are identical to those for the SOp
15
-------
Table 2-5. CO CONTINUOUS SAMPLER--
PURCHASE, OPERATING, AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
Investment Annual
I. Capital costs*
Analyzer $ 3,400. $ 680.
Recorder 1,000. 200.
Accessories 100. 20.
Calibration gases, regulators 500. 100.
Installation 100. 20.
II. Normal operating costs
Electric power ' 50.
Recorder paper 100.
Supplies 50.
Calibration and operational checks 1,248.
(3 hours per week, $8 per hour)
Data reduction (100 hours per year, 800.
$8 per hour)
III. Maintenance and repair
Maintenance (100 hours per year, 1,000.
$10 per hour)
Replacement parts 300.
IV. Supervision and quality control
Supervise, review, validate, and 1,440
report data (72 hours per year,
$20 per hour)
Quality control (71 hours per year, 1,280.
$18 per hour)
Totals $ 5,100. $ 7,288.
*Capital costs are amortized over a five-year period in equal
installments.
Source: Research Triangle Institute.
16
-------
continuous sampler. Table 2-6 reports the total capital requirements of
$7625 for the 03 sampler.
Other annual costs reported in Table 2-6 include $250 for electricity
and supplies, and $2205 in personnel costs for calibration, operational
checks, and data reduction. Maintenance, repair, supervision, and quality
control are expected to cost about $3480 annually. The total annual costs
of Ov sampler operation are estimated at $7100.
A
2.1.8 N02 Gas Bubbler Sampler
The only differences in the projected annual costs of the
N02 and S02 bubbler samplers result from the smaller number of required
N02 samples. The cost items affected are the capital outlay for sample
tubes etc. and the variable cost items in cost category II in Table 2-7.
Overall annual costs are estimated at $2508.
2.1.9 NOp Continuous Sampler
The N02 continuous sampler is not presently required of any
state air quality monitoring networks. However, since several states
have proposed to use this instrument its costs were also estimated and
are reported in Table 2-8. It is the most expensive of all the instruments
reviewed in this study. Its total installed cost, including the calibration
system,is $9750. The main component of capital cost is the analyzer itself
which costs about $6000. Other annual cost items are based on the cost
and time parameters indicated in Table 2-8. Total annual costs are
projected to be $8510 per instrument.
2.2 Other Air Quality Monitoring Network Costs
Costs not directly associated with the purchase, operation, and
maintenance of air quality monitoring instrumentation consist of
non-recurring start-up costs in addition to travel costs to remote
sites, equipment replacement costs, and data processing costs. The
non-recurring costs include expenditures for instrument housing, for
system specification and engineering, for documentation, and for
personnel training.
2.2.1 Instrument Housing
Though many shelter types are available for housing air
quality monitoring instruments, the approach of this study was to assume
that, where new equipment housing is necessary, the states would
install structures of a semipermanent type. Based on its previous work,
17
-------
Table 2-6. CONTINUOUS OZONE SAMPLER--
PURCHASE, OPERATING, AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
Investment Annual
I. Capital Costs*
Chemiluminescent $ 4,200. $ 840.
ozone meter or
equivalent
Recorder 1,000. 200.
Accessories (ethylene regulator, 75. 15.
filters)
Calibration systemt 2,250. 90.
Installation 100. 20.
II. Normal operating costs
Electric power 50.
Recorder paper 100.
Miscellaneous supplies 100.
Calibration and operational checks 1,405.
(3 hours per week, $9 per hour)
Data reduction (100 hours per year, 800.
$8 per hour)
III. Maintenance and repair
Maintenance (100 hours per year, 1,000.
$10 per hour)
Replacement parts 400.
IV. Supervision and quality control
Supervise, review, validate, and 1,440.
report data (72 hours per year,
$20 per hour)
Quality control (35.5 hours per 640.
year, $18 per hour)
Totals $ 7,625. $ 7,100.
*Capital costs are amortized over a five-year period in equal
installments.
tAmortization assumes that one calibration system is used for every
five analyzers.
Source: Research Triangle Institute.
18
-------
Table 2-7. N02 GAS BUBBLER SAMPLER--
PURCHASE, OPERATING, AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
Investment Annual
I. Capital cost*
Gas sampler with shelter and $ 400. $ 80.
timer
Sample tubes, orifice tubes, demister, 90. 18.
filter, and orifices
Installation 50. 10.
II. Normal operating costs
Electric paver 40.
Reagents 30.
Sampling (20 minutes per sample. 30 90.
samples per year, $9 per hour)
Sample analysis (30 minutes per sample, 210.
30 samples per year, $14 per hour)
Sample block mailing costs (30 samples 1
per year, $1 per sample)
III. Maintenance and repair
Equipment maintenance (40 hours per 360.
year, $9 per hour)
Replacement parts 200.
IV. Supervision and quality control
Supervise, review, validate, and -7-£0".
report data (36 hours per year,
$20 per hour)
Quality control (40 hours per year, -720.
$18 per hour)
Totals $ 540. $ 2^08.
*Capital costs are amortized over a five-year period in equal
installments.
Source: Research Triangle Institute.
19
-------
Table 2-8. N02 CONTINUOUS SAMPLER--
PURCHASE, OPERATING, AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
Investment Annual
I. Capital costs*
Chemiluminescent analyzer $ 6,000. $ 1,200.
Strip chart recorder 1,000. 200.
Accessories
Stainless steel regulator 300. 60.
N02 tank 100. 20.
Installation 100. 20.
Calibration systemt 2,250. 90.
II. Normal operating costs
Electric power 50.
Recorder paper 100.
Supplies 150.
Calibration and daily operational 1,800.
checks (200 hours per year,
$9 per hour)
Data reduction (100 hours per year, 800.
$8 per hour)
III. Maintenance and repair
Maintenance (100 hours per year, 1,000.
$10 per hour)
Replacement parts 300.
IV. Supervision and quality control
Supervise, review, validate, and 1,440.
report data (72 hours per year,
$20 per hour)
Quality control (71 hours per year, 1,280.
$18 per hour)
Totals $ 9,750. $ 8,510.
*Capital costs are amortized over a five-year period in equal
installments.
tAmortization assumes that one calibration system is used for every
five analyzers.
Source: Research Triangle Institute.
20
-------
RTI regarded the prefabricated, aluminum-sided building as the most
desireable after consideration of size, environmental control, cost,
and durability requirements.* These buildings consist of a corrugated
aluminum shell with a welded steel framework. They are insulated and
contain all-seasons air conditioning units. Three size options seemed
appropriate to satisfy the needs of the states in setting up new
monitoring sites. They were: ten by twenty-two feet, eight by twelve
feet, and three by four feet. The estimated purchase costs for these
shelters were $5000, $2500, and $350, respectively.
As discussed in the next chapter, the number of new air quality
monitoring sites resulting from both the implementation of the federal
air quality monitoring requirements and from the implementation of the
SIPs were projected. Also, the number and type of instruments to be
located at each site was projected. By using this information the necessary
number of new shelters was projected.
First, it was assumed that all existing instruments were adequately
housed and, therefore, that the states would incur no additional costs
to house that equipment. Secondly, it was assumed that the states will
use sites of opportunity whenever feasible. (A site of opportunity is
defined as any municipal building or private property where instruments
are sited without additional expenditures for shelters, e.g., a fire or
police station.) A site of opportunity was regarded as feasible if the
projected site included only one sampler, unless the single instrument
was an SOp, CO, or HQy continuous sampler, all of which require more
strictly controlled temperatures and humidity for proper operation. A
site of opportunity was also assumed adequate if the projected site
contained only a high volume and a tape particulate sampler. All other
projected equipment configurations were assumed to require a separate
semipermanent structure of the type just discussed. The appropriate
structure size was simply based on space requirements, e.g., a full
*C. E. Decker, et al, Program for Upgrading the N02 Instrumentation
Employed in the 1972 Chattanooga NOg Exposure Study, Final Report on
Project No. CAPM-10-71 to the Coordinating Research Council, Inc. Research
Triangle Park, N.C.: Research Triangle Institute, 1973, pp. 9-10.
21
-------
complement of samplers would require a ten by twenty-two foot structure
whereas an N02 and an S02 bubbler could be accomodated by a three by
four foot shelter.
2.2.2 Data Processing Costs
Since the federal requirements do not include automatic or
telemetered air quality monitoring systems (see Chapter 4), the relevant
data processing costs were assumed to include routine calculations and
keypunching and verification of computer cards. It was assumed that,
on the average, data from each sampler in the air quality monitoring
network would require about ten computer cards per day. Keypunching
and verification costs were estimated at seven cents per card and the
personnel costs for routine calculations were approximated at $45 per
sampler per year. Consequently, aggregate annual data processing costs
were estimated at $300 (365 x 10 x .07 + 45) per sampler per year.
2.2.3 Travel Costs
Travel costs consist of two items: (1) the time cost
of the technician who commutes to and from the air quality monitoring
site and (2) the cost of vehicle operation. It was assumed here that
the average distance between the monitoring site and the central
facility is eight miles and that the average time required for a round
trip is thirty minutes. In assuming that the burdened wage rate for
the commuting technician is $9 per hour, the personnel travel costs
were estimated at $4.50 ($9 x 1/2 hour). Vehicle related costs were
estimated at twelve cents per mile or $1.92 per round trip (16 x .12).
Aggregate travel costs were therefore estimated at $6.42 ($4.50 + $1.92)
per round trip to a monitoring site.
2.2.4 System Setup Costs
Although most states currently have at least partial air
quality monitoring networks they will clearly incur additional costs
for a variety of fixed items associated with enlarging or completing
the networks. These include: system specification preparation and
engineering; documentation of system operation and maintenance techniques;
and personnel training costs.
System specification costs include the expenses of preparing grant
applications, of designing the network, of preparing the requests for
22
-------
proposals on instrumentation contracts, of evaluating those proposals,
and of supervising the construction and testing of new instruments.
System engineering costs reflect the time requirements to evaluate
and select new monitoring sites.
Documentation costs refer to the necessary outlays of time and
materials in preparing operation and maintenance manuals for network
instrumentation. Finally, training costs include the salary and expenses
required to school maintenance and operating technicians in the proper
techniques of sample analysis, instrument maintenance, strip chart
reading etc.
The method of estimating these costs was primarily based on
previous work by the MITRE Corporation.* It was assumed that these
costs will be incurred only once at the initiation of the system.
Following MITRE's technique it was estimated that documentation costs
will be approximately five percent of new hardware costs. System
engineering costs were estimated at 16 hours at each new site for both
a senior engineer ($18 per hour) and a technician ($9 per hour). System
specification costs and training costs were projected at $9000 per fifty
new instruments.
2.2.5 Equipment Replacement Costs
After reviewing the MITRE cost model and the work reported
by Kovalick, in addition to reflecting on RTI's experience in air
monitoring equipment operation,t it appeared reasonable to assign five
years as the average replacement time for air quality monitoring
instrumentation. Therefore, the number of each type of instrument to
be replaced by mid-1974 was estimated as twenty percent of the number of
existing instruments that are needed to meet either the federal requirements
or the requirements of the proposals in the state implementation plans.
These estimated numbers were then multiplied by the approximate cost of
each instrument (reported in Tables 2-1 through 2-8) and summed to
*See W. H. Keenan, et al. (1969).
tSee W. H. Keenan, et al., op. cit. and Walter W. Kovalick, Jr.
"The Demand for Air Monitoring Instruments," Pollution Engineering.
V, No. 9 (September, 1973), p. 39.
23
-------
derive a final estimate of the cost of replacing currently existing
instruments to meet the hardware requirements for the monitoring systems
that are expected to be operational by mid-1974. The costs of replacing
equipment in future years are accounted for in the annualized capital
charge reported in Tables 2-1 through 2-8.
2.3 Summary
This chapter summarized the cost factors that were employed in the
computation of projected aggregate expenditures to upgrade currently
existing air quality monitoring systems to satisfy federal requirements.
These factors included individual instrument purchases and installation
expenditures as well as operating, maintenance, supervision, and quality
control costs. Separate cost factors were projected for instrument shelters,
for data processing, for^travel to remote sites, for system design, documen-
tation and training and finally for the expected replacement of existing
instruments.
24
-------
CHAPTER 3: AGGREGATE AIR QUALITY MONITORING COST ESTIMATES
This chapter presents air quality monitoring cost estimates that are
based on the cost factors developed in Chapter 2. Section 3.1 discusses
and presents in a tabular format some of the relevant data on numbers of
instruments and air quality monitoring sites that were used in projecting
the demand for new instruments and sites. Section 3.2 gives the projected
new investment and expected annual operating costs associated with indi-
vidual air quality monitoring instruments. Finally, Section 3.3 summarizes
the cost data of Section 3.2 and incorporates additional cost estimates for
other items specific to the number of new monitoring sites that were pro-
jected. Those items included instrument housing costs, initial personnel
costs, and travel costs.
3.1 Monitoring Instruments and Sites, by State
3.1.1 Total Required, Proposed, and Existing Instruments
To develop projections of the number of air quality monitoring instru-
ments of each type that will be in operation by mid-1974, it was first
necessary to refer to air sampling instrument inventories that were reported
in the SIP's. Then, since this study set out to project instrumentation
needs under both the requirements of the federal promulgations (Appendix A)
and the requirements of state proposed monitoring networks, it was necessary
to determine the number of existing instruments that would be employed given
each of these two sets of demand assumptions (referred to in Table 3-1 and
hereafter as "required" and "proposed," respectively).
Table 3-1 arrays two sets of data for each state. The left half of the
table displays data which are relevant to the federally required network
of monitoring instruments; the right half to the state proposed network.
For each state, within each of these two groups, three tabular headings
are indicated: projected, existing, and total. The "total" entries refer
to the number of each type of instrument that would be necessary to meet
the stipulations of either the required or of the state proposed network,
according to whether one refers to the left or to the right hand portion
of the table. The entry labelled "existing" indicates the number of cur-
rently operating instruments of each type (as reported in the SIP's) that
are needed to meet the relevant stipulations as reported in the "total"
entries. Finally, the "projected" entries are simply the difference between
25
-------
the "total" and the "existing" entries. The numbers of projected instru-
ments are the estimates of the number of new instruments of each type that
must be purchased to meet the relevant requirements.
3.1.2 Assumed Site Configurations
Several of the cost elements mentioned in Section 2.2 required an esti-
mate of the number of sites and of the configuration of air quality monitoring
equipment at each site to obtain appropriate aggregate cost estimates. These
data were projected in the following manner. First, it was assumed that all
existing instruments are adequately housed and that they are combined at
each site so as to minimize the number of sites without having duplicate
instruments at each location. That number is reported in the column headed
"Total Sites" in Table 3-1. For example, in Alabama under the federal
requirements, it is estimated that 37 different locations are needed to
accommodate existing instruments.
For projected new instruments, essentially the same procedure was
applied by using the data reported in the entry labelled "projected." Again
an Alabama example, it was expected that 13 new sites would be necessary to
accommodate new instruments dictated by the federal requirements.
For two reasons the U.S. totals at the end of Table 3-1 are not fully
comparable to the data reported in Table 1-1. First, the horizontal entries
labelled "existing" in Table 3-1 report only the number of currently operating
instruments that are needed to meet the specifications of either the federal
requirements or of the state proposed air monitoring plans. In conjunction
with the fact that several states report larger inventories of certain
instruments than are needed under either the federally required or the state
proposed plans, this reporting method causes part of the difference between
the aggregate numbers of "existing" instruments under the state proposed plans
and the number of existing instruments reported in Table 1-1. A second source
of the difference was the use, in this report, of the instrument inventories
gathered by Kovalick (1973b) for the three states—Florida, Louisiana, North
Carolina—whose implementation plans failed to report instrument inventories.
This technique was likely to have estimated instrument inventories which
differed from those assumed by EPA in providing the tabulations of Table 1-1.
26
-------
TABLE 3-1. NUMBER OF EXISTING AND PROJECTED AIR QUALITY
MONITORING INSTRUMENTS AND SITES AS REQUIRED OF AND PROPOSED BY INDIVIDUAL STATES'
ro
Required
PM.
Alabama
Projected
Existing
Total
Alaska
Projected
Existing
Total
Arizona
Projected
Existing
Total
Arkansas
Projected
Existing
Total
California
Projected
Existing
Total
Colorado
Projected
Existing
Total
Connecticut
Projected
Existing
Total
Delaware
Projected
Existing
Total
District of
Columbia
Projected
Existing
Total
HIVol
0
37
37
5
6
11
0
16
16
0
9
9
0
66
66
0
27
27
0
19
19
0
3
3
0
4
4
Tape
11
5
16
2
0
2
1
7
8
2
0
2
22
0
22
3
4
7
0
10
10
0
1
1
0
2
2
so2
Bubb
13
1
14
5
1
6
9
4
13
3
1
4
0
15
15
7
1
8
7
5
12
0
2
2
3
0
3
Cont
3
0
3
1
0
1
0
5
5
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
5
5
0
1
1
0
1
1
CO
Cont
2
1
3
1
0
1
1
2
3
0
0
0
0
29
29
2
1
3
3
2
5
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
Cont
3
1
4
0
0
0
1
2
3
0
0
0
0
32
32
2
1
3
2
3
5
0
1
1
0
1
1
N02
Bubb
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
4.
11
1
0
1
30
0
30
0
0
0
10
0
10
0
1
1
3
0
3
Total
Instru-
ments
32
45
_77___
14
7
21
19
40
59
6
10
16
52
144
196
14
34
48
22
44
66
0
10
10
6
9
15
Total
Sites
13
37
50
5
6
11
9
16
25
3
9
12
30
66
96
—
7
27
34
10
19
29
0
10
10
3
4
7
PM
HiVol
0
38
38
22
6
28
2
33
35
13
16
29
32
70
102
11
55
66
7
60
67
6
14
20
3
7
10
Tape
11
5
16
2
0
2
4
7
11
5
0
5
53
0
53
13
4
17
0
39
39
6
14
20
3
7
10
so2
Bubb
14
1
15
5
1
6
1
4
5
5
1
6
0
17
17
6
1
7
6
5
11
6
10
16
0
0
0
Cont
4
0
4
1
0
1
5
7
12
0
0
0
3
20
23
5
2
7
5
19
24
6
14
20
3
3
6
Proposed
CO
Cont
2
1
3
1
0
1
2
2
4
0
0
0
13
44
57
5
1
6
4
2
6
0
4
4
3
2
5
0
Cont
3
1
4
'0
0
0
1
2
3
0
0
0
13
68
81
5
1
6
4
3
7
0
4
4
1
1
2
N
Bubb
0
0
0
1
'l
2
8
4
12
1
0
1
12
0
12
0
0
0
22
0
22
6
14
20
0
0
0
°2
Cont
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
4
50
54
5
1
6
0
2
2
0
4
4
2
2
4
Total
Instru-
ments
34
46
80
32
8
40
23
60
83
\
24
17
41
130
269
399
50
65
115
48
130
178
30
78
108
15
22
37
Total
Sites
14
38
52
22
6
28
8
33
41
13
16
29
53
70
123
13
55
68
22
60
82
6
14
20
3
7
10
Instrument Inventories were made available by the EPA. The number of existing instruments refers only to those needed under either the
federal requirements or the state proposals.
'instrument inventories in this state unclear in implementation plans. Inventory data gathered by Kovalick (1973b) was employed.
-------
Table 3-1 (continued)
CO
Required
PM
Florida1*
Projected
Existing
Total
Georgia
Projected
Existing
Total
Hawaii
Projected
Existing
Total
Idaho
Projected
Existing
Total
Illinois
Projected
Existing
Total
Indiana
Projected
Existing
Total
Iowa
Projected
Existing
Total
Kansas
Projected
Existing
Total
Kentucky
Projected
Existing
Total
HIVol
0
30
30
3
40
43
0
3
3
0
15
15
0
56
56
0
45
45
2
31
33
0
34
34
0
30
30
Tape
8
6
14
12
5
17
0
1
1
3
0
3
0
19
19
0
15
15
9
1
10
7
1
8
0
11
11
SO,
Bubb
0
16
16
15
11
26
0
1
1
6
0
6
8
29
37
0
28
28
8
4
12
0
6
6
0
14
14
Cont
0
5
5
6
4
10
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
16
16
0
10
10
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
3
3
CO
Cont
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
9
10
4
0
4
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
Cont
0
4
4
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
6
10
4
0
4
1
1
2
2
1
3
0
3
3
N02
Bubb
7
13
20
9
6
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
12
0
13
13
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
10
10
Total
Instru-
ments
15
74
89
45
67
112
0
5
5
9
16
25
25
135
160
8
111
119
20
40
60
9
43
52
0
71
71
Total
Sites
8
30
38
15
40
55
0
3
3
6
15
21
12
56
68
4
45
49
9
31
40
7
34
41
0
30
30
PM
HiVol
0
30
30
16
40
56
5
7
12
8
27
35
9
116
125
30
94
124
13
31
44
25
34
59
87
78
165
Tape
7
6
13
18
5
23
2
1
3
4
0
4
12
22
34
19
24
43
11
1
12
9
1
10
15
17
32
so2
Bubb
0
16
16
18
11
29
3
5
8
8
Q
8
.
21
29
50
46
43
89
9
4
13
28
8
36
90
60
150
Cont
1
5
6
7
4
11
0
1
1
0
3
3
6
26
32
14
18
32
2
1
3
2
0
2
11
12
23
Proposed
CO
Cont
0
0
0
0
3
3
1
1
2
0
0
0
7
9
16
7
0
7
0
1
1
2
3
5
11
3
14
0
X
Cont
0
3
3
0
1
1
1
1
2
0
0
0
6
6
12
7
0
7
1
1
2
4
1
5
9
3
12
N
Bubb
7
13
20
10
6
16
4
5
9
0
0
0
13
3
16
43
37
80
2
2
4
32
3
35
109
51
160
°2
Cont
0
0
0.
0
1
1.
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
10
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
2
3
Total
Instru-
ments
15
73
88
69
71
140
16
21
37
20
30
50
75
221
296
166
216
382
38
41
79
103
50
153
333
226
559
Total
Sites
7
30
37
18
40
58
5
7
12
8
27
35
21
116
137
46
94
140
13
31
44
32
34
66
109
78
187
-------
Table 3-1 (continued)
po
ID
Required
PM
Louisiana
Projected
Existing
Total
Maine
Projected
Existing
Total
Maryland
Projected
Existing
Total
Massachusetts
Projected
Existing
Total
Michigan
Projected
Existing
Total
Minnesota
Projected
Existing
Total
Mississippi
Projected
Existing
Total
Missouri
Projected
Existing
Total
Montana
Projected
Existing
Total
HiVol
0
5
5
7
6
13
0
31
31
0
34
34
0
29
29
0
27
27
0
11
11
0
30
30
6
7
13
Tape
0
2
2
2
1
3
0
14
14
4
12
16
11
1
12
0
12
12
6
0
6
0
14
14
2
1
3
S02
Bubb
5
5
10
5
5
10
0
21
21
0
21
21
12
6
18
1
15
16
6
1
7
5
6
11
9
2
11
Cont
0
5
5
1
2
3
0
8
8
1
8
9
0
8
8
0
6
6
2
0
2
0
4
4
1
2
3
CO
Cont
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
6
3
3
6
0
0
0
0
4
4
0
0
0
0
6
6
0
0
0
°*
Cont
0
5
5
0
0
0
0
6
6
3
3
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
0
6
6
0
0
0
NO,
Bubb
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
14
0
16
16
15
6
21
1
9
10
0
0
0
4
3
7
0
0
0
Total
Instru-
ments
5
22
27
15
14
29
0
100
100
11
97
108
38
50
88
2
73
75
16
12
28
9
69
78
18
12
30
Total
Sites
5
6
11
7
6
13
0
31
31
4
34
38
15
29
44
1
27
28
6
11
17
5
30
35
9
7
16
PM
HIVol
4
5
9
16
6
22
12
62
74
17
46
63
47
80
127
0
68
68
12
17
29
7
68
75
7
7
14
Tape
1
2
3
3
1
4
9
16
25
9
12
21
28
1
29
1
22
23
6
0
6
5
15
20
2
1
3
so2
Bubb
8
5
13
17
5
22
14
24
38
20
46 '
66
30
6
36
5
15
20
14
1
15
0
6
6
9
2
11
Cont
1
5
6
1
2
3
9
17
26
14
8
22
11
16
27
5
7
12
4
0
4
4
7
11
2
2
4
Proposed
CO
Cont
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
12
20
8
3
11
10
0
10
0
4
4
0
0
Q
3
10
13
0
0
0
0
Cont
1
5
6
0
0
0
6
13
19
9
3
12
5
0
5
2
3
5
3
0
3
4
9
13
0
0
0
N
Bubb
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
20
34
16
46
62
30
6
36
1
9
10
1
0
1
1
3
4
0
0
0
°2
Cont
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
4
7
0
7
4
1
5
0
3
3
0
0
0
3
9
12
0
0
0
Total
Instru-
ments
15
22
37
37
14
• 51
72
168
240
100
164
264
165
110
275
14
131
145
40
18
58
27
127
154
20
12
32
Total
Sites
8
5
13
17
6
23
14
62
76
20
46
66
47
80
127
5
68
73
14
17
31
7
68
75
9
7
16
-------
Table 3-1 (continued)
CO
o
Required
PM
HiVol
Nebraska
Projected
Existing
Total
Nevada
Projected
Existing
Total
New Hampshire
Projected
Existing
Total
New Jersey
Projected
Existing
Total
New Mexico
Projected
Existing
Total
New York
Projected
Existing
Total
North Carolina
Projected
Existing
Total
North Dakota
Projected
Existing
Total
Ohio
Projected
Existing
Total
0
12
12
0
13
13
0
8
8
0
19
19
0
16
16
0
72
72
0
54
54
0
6
6
0
78
78
Tape
0
3
3
1
2
3
2
0
2
0
5
. 5
1
2
3
0
25
25
0
17
17
2
0
2
20
12
32
SO,
Bubb
5
1
6
0
6
6
3
4
7
13
0
13
2
6
8
23
16
39
0
10
10
1
1
2
15
25
40
Cont
1
0
1
2
0
2
2
0
2
0
7
7
0
1
1
0
19
19
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
CO
Cont
0
0
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
8
8
0
1
1
0
13
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
°x
Cont
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
3
4
7
1
2
3
7
9
16
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
NO,
Bubb
5
1
6
0
5
5
0
0
0
7
0
7
0
0
0
19
7
26
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total ,
Instru—
11
17
28
4
29
33
7
12
19
23
43
66
4
28
32
49
161
210
0
84
84
3
7
10
35
115
150
5
12
17
2
13
15
3
8
11
13
19
32
2
16
18
23
72
95
0
54
54
2
6
8
20
78
98
PM
HiVol
0
29
29
0
34
34
7
25
32
0
50
50
10
42
52
106
230
336
111
54
165
0
15
15
53
202
255
Tape
1
3
4
2
2
4
6
0
6
0
22
22
7
2
9
10
47
57
28
17
45
2
0
2
29
12
41
so2
Bubb
5
1
6
0
6
6
9
4
13
5
0.
5
.
16
6
22
5
6
11
121
10
131
1
1
2
59
35
94
Cont
1
0
1
2
0
2
4
0
4
1
21
22
2
3
5
34
45
79
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
24
24
Proposed
CO
Cont
0
0
0
' 1
1
2
2
0
2
0
22
22
1
2
3
7
22
29
4
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
°x
Cont
0
0
0
1
2
3
1
0
1
3
4
7
1
2
3
14
9
23
3
2
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
NC
Bubb
6
1
7
0
5
5
12
1
13
8
0
8
12
6
18
21
7
28
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
>2
Cont
0
0
0 .
0
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ments
13
34
47
6
53
59
41
30
71
17
119
136
49
63
112
197
366
563
267
83
350
4
16
20
141
273
414
Sites
6
29
35
2
34
36
12
25
37
8
50
58
16
42
58
106
230
336
121
54
175
2
15
17
59
202
261
-------
Table 3-1 (continued)
Required
PM SX>2
Oklahoma
Projected
Existing
Total
Oregon
Projected
Existing
Total
Pennsylvania
Projected
Existing
Total
Puerto Rico
Projected
Existing
Total
Rhode Island
Projected
Existing
Total
South Carolina
Projected
Existing
Total
South Dakota
Projected
Existing
Total
Tennessee
Projected
Existing
Total
Texas
Projected
Existing
Total
HiVol
0
24
24
0
20
20
0
68
68
0
3
3
0
7
7
4
2
6
4
2
6
0
39
39
0
52
52
Tape
4
3
7
4
5
9
18
15
33
1
0
1
4
0
4
1
0
1
1
0
1
12
4
16
17
3
20
Bubb
0
7
7
1
5
6
28
0
28
2
1
3
0
5
5
4
0
4
4
0
4
9
5
14
0
37
37
Cont
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
14
14
1
0
1
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
4
12
0
12
CO
Cont
0
0
0
0
3
3
0
11
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
°K
Cont
2
2
4
1
2
3
4
7
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
4
5
19
0
19
NO,
Bubb
0
0
0
0
0
0
45
0
45
0
0
0
0
6
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
11
0
0
0
Total
Instru-
ments
6
36
42
6
36
42
95
115
210
4
4
8
6
18
24
9
2
11
9
2
11
24
65
89
49
92
141
Total
Sites
4
24
28
4
20
24
45
68
113
2
3
5
4
7
11
4
2
6
4
2
6
1.2
39
51
19
52
71
PM
HiVol
19
79
98
0
27
27
35
81
116
18
4
22
7
18
25
4
2
6
4
2
6
4
92
96
81
140
221
Tape
7
3
10.
4
5
9
45
15
60
7
0
7
4
0
4
1
0
1
1
b
i
12
4
16
22
3
25
so2
Bubb
7
8
15
2
5
7
0
0
0
2
1
3
3
18
21
4
0
4
4
0
4
40 .
5
45
120
51
171
Cont
3
0
3
0
1
1 .
42
17
59
19
0
19
4
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
2
6
61
0
61
Proposed
CO
Cont
1
3
4
1
3
4
38
12
50
1
0
1
4
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
4
5
79
0
79
°X
Cont
2
2
4
1
2
3
37
7
44
0
0
0
4
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
4
7
81
0 .
81
N
Bubb
0
. 0
0
4
0
4
0
0
0
16
3
19
7
18
25
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
16
36
0
0
0
°2
Cont
0
0
0
0
0
0
53
7
60
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
79
0
79
Total
Instru-
ments
39
95
134
12
43
55
250
139
389
63
8
71
33
54
87
9
2
11
9
2
11
86
127
213
523
194
717
Total
Sites
19
79
98
4
27
31
53
81
134
19
4
23
7
25
32
4
2
6
4
2
6
40
92
132
120
140
260
-------
Table 3-1 (continued)
Required
PM
Utah
Projected
Existing
Total
Vermont
Projected
Existing
Total
Virginia
Projected
Existing
Total
Washington
Projected
Existing
Total
West Virginia
Projected
Existing
Total
Wisconsin
Projected
Existing
Total
Wyoming
Projected
Existing
Total
American Samoa
Projected
Existing
Total
Guam
Projected
Existing
Total
HiVol
3
8
11
0
4
4
0
55
55
0
31
31
0
24
24
0
24
24
1
6
7
1
0
1
1
0
1
Tape
0
3
3
0
1
1
9
11
20
0
14
14
0
5
5
7
3
10
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
SO,
Bubb
5
.4
9
3
1
4
0
17
17
11
0
11
0
10
10
0
8
8
2
1
3
1
0
1
3
0
3
Cont
0
2
2
0
1
1
3
2
5
0
3
3
2
0
2
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
CO
Cont
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
7
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
°x
Cont
0
2
2
0
'o
0
3
4
7
0
5
5
0
0
0
0
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NO,
Bubb
6
4
10
0
0
0
1
20
21
10
0
10
0
0
0
3
7
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Instru-
ments
14
25
39
3
7
10
16
111
127
21
60
81
2
39
41
10
47
57
5
7
12
2
0
2
5
0
5
Total
Sites
6
8
14
3
4
7
9
55
64
11
31
42
2
24
26
7
24
31
2
6
8
1
0 '
1 •
3
0
3
PM
HiVol
11
8
19
3
7
10
35
73
108
1
71
72
3
34
37
3
71
74
4
6
10
1
0
1
2
0
2
Tape
0
5
5
1
1
2
12
11
23
1
18
19
2
22
24
9
3
12
2
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
1
SO,
Bubb
11
4
15
2
1
3
24
23
47
4
0
4
8
. 13
21
8
22
30
2
1
3
1
0
1
3
0
3
Cont
1
5
6
4
2
6
7
2
9
1
20
21
2
0
2
5
4
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
- 1
0
1
Proposed
CO
Cont
1
4
5
0
1
1
4
3
7
0
9
9
0
1
1
8
1
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
X
Cont
1
4
5
0
1
1
3
4
7
0
7
7
0
3
3
5
6
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
N
Bubb
11
4
15
0
0
0
18
20
38
10
0
10
0
0
0
1
7
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
°2
Cont
1
5
6
0
1
1
0
2
2
0
3
3
0
0
0
5
1
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Instru-
ments
37
39
76
10
14
24
103
138
241
17
128
145
15
73
88
44
115
159
8
7
15
2
0
2
7
0
7
Total
Sites
11
8
19
4
7
11
35
73
108
10
71
81
8
34
42
9
71
80
4
6
10
1
0
1
3
0
3
-------
Table 3-1 (continued)
Required
PM
HiVol
Tape
so2
Bubb
Cont
CO
Cont
x 2 Total _ .
Cont
Bubb
ments
Sitet
PM
L
' HiVol
Tape
so2
Bubb
Cont
Proposed
CO
Cont
0
Cont
2 Total _ ,
,._.... Total
Bubb
Cont
ments Sltes
U.S. Virgin Is.
Projected
Existing
Total
Total U.S.
Projected
Existing
Total
0
3
3
37
1301
1338
0
1
1
211
279
490
1
2
3
263
393
656
1
0
1
44
151
195
0
0
0
19
114
133
0
0
0
65
126
191
0
0
0
195
158
353
2
6
8
834
2522
3356
1
3
4
406
1285
1691
0
6
6
933
2517
3450
0
1
1
474
419
893
1
2
3
850
549
1399
1
0
1
325
345
670
0
0
0
240
193
433
0
0
0
245
188
433
0
0
0
480
311
791
0
0 .
0
168
112
280
2
9
11
3715
4639
8349
1
6
7
1242
2524
3766
to
00
-------
3.2 Instrument Specific Air Monitoring Cost Estimates, by State
This section reports the initial costs of air quality monitoring
instruments and their annual operating costs by state for each instrument
type. Table 3-2 summarizes these data.
Table 3-2 follows the format of Table 3-1 in distinguishing federal
requirements ("required" in the left portion of the table) from the require-
ments implicit in the state proposals ("proposed" in the right portion of
the table). For each state and instrument, there are two categories of
cost: total initial investment and total annual cost.
The total initial investment requirement is further subdivided into
new investment and replacement investment. The former estimate is simply
developed by multiplying the number of projected instruments from Table 3-1
by the relevant investment requirement from Tables 2-1 through 2-8. Fol-
lowing the assumption that the average life of a monitoring instrument is
five years, it was assumed that 20 percent of all existing instruments in
each state must be replaced by mid-1974. Therefore, the necessary expendi-
ture or replacement investment was estimated as 20 percent of the product
of the number of existing instruments from Table 3-1 and the relevant
investment requirement from Tables 2-1 through 2-8.
To derive an annualized capital cost, the total number of instruments
arrayed in Table 3-1 (under either "required" or "proposed" assumptions)
were multiplied by the sum of the "annual" entries in Tables 2-1 through 2-8
that are in cost category I, capital costs. For example, in Alabama under
"required" assumptions, 16 tape samplers are needed. That total (16) was
multiplied by $205, the sum of the "annual" cost entries in category I of
Table 2-2 to yield the annual capital cost of $3280 in Table 3-2.
Finally, the annual variable costs of equipment operation are estimated
by multiplying the remaining annual costs, i.e., non-capital related annual
costs, by the same total number of instruments arrayed in Table 3-1. Using
the same example from Alabama for tape samplers under "required" assumptions,
the remaining annual costs are $5154 ($5359 from Table 2-2 less the $205 in
annual capital costs). These costs times the total number of required tape
samplers yields the annual variable cost, $82,464 ($5154 x 16).
Table 3-2 also presents cost totals for all four cost breakdowns under
both "required" and "proposed" assumptions for each state.
34
-------
Table 3-2. ESTIMATED INITIAL PURCHASE AND ANNUAL OPERATING
COSTS OF AIR SAMPLING INSTRUMENTS, BY TYPE
Required •
PM
Alabama
New investment
Replacement investment
Total initial investment
Annualized capital cost
Annual variable cost
Total annual cost
Alaska
New investment
Replacement investment
Total initial investment
Annualized capital cost
Annual variable cost
Total annual cost
Arizona
New investment
Replacement investment
Total Initial investment
Annualized capital cost
Annual variable cost
Total annual cost
Arkansas
Sew investment
Replacement investment
Total initial investment
•'. .-.-. i izea capi.dl cost
Annual variable cost
Total annual cost
HiVol
0
3,034
3,034
2,479
39.479
41,958
2,050
492
2,542
737
11,737
12,474
0
1,312
1,312
1,072
17,072
18,144
0
738
738
603
9,603
10,206
Tape
11,275
1,025
12,300
3,280
82,464
85,744
2,050
0
2,050
410
10,308
10,718
1,025
1,435
2,460
1,640
41,232
42,872
2,050
0
2,050
410
10,308
10,718
so2
Bubb
8,229
127
8,356
1,764
38,654
40,418
3,165
127
3,292
756
16,566
17,322
5,697
506
6,203
1,638
35,893
37,531
1,899
127
2,026
504
11,044
11,548
Cont
25,050
0
25,050
3,930
18,870
22,800
8,350
0
8,350
1,310
6,290
7,600
0
8,350
8,350
6,550
31,450
38,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
CO
Cont
10,200
1,020
11,220
3,060
18,804
21,864
•
5,100
0
5,100
1,020
6,268
7,288
5,100
2,040
7,140
3.060
18,804
21 ,864
0
0
0
0
0
0
°x
Cont
22,875
1,525
24,400
4,660
24,320
28,980
0
0
0
0
0
0
7,625
3,050
10,675
• 3,495
18,240
21,735
0
0
0
0
0
0
N02
Bubb
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3,780
432
4,112
1,188
26,950
28,138
540
0
540
108
2.450
2,558
Totals
77,629
6,731
84,360
19,173
222,591
241,764
20,715
619
21,334
4,233
51,169
55,402
23,227
17,125
40,352
18,643
189,641
208,284
4,489
865
5,354
1,625
33,405
35,030
PM
HiVol
0
3,116
3,116
2,546
40,546
43,092
9,020
492
9,512
1,876
29.876
31,752
820
2,706
3,526
2,345
37,345
39,690
5,330
1,312
6,642
1.943
30,943
32.886
Tape
11,275
1,025
12,300
3,280
82.464
85,744
2,050
0
2,050
410
10,308
10,718
4,100
1,435
5.535
2,255
56,694
58,949
5,125
0
5,125
1,025
25,770
26.795
so2
Bubb
8.862
127
8,989
1,890
41,415
43.305
3,165
127
3,292
756
16,566
17,322
633
506
1,139
630
13,805
14,435
3,165
127
3.292
756
16,566
17,322
1 Cont
33,400
0
33,400
5,240
25.160
30.400
8,350
0
8,350
1,310
6.290
7,600
41,750
11,690
53,440
15,720
75,480
91.200
0
0
0
0
0
0
Proposed
CO
Cont
10,200
1,020
11,220
3,060
18.804
21.864
5,100
0
5,100
1,020
6.268
7,288
10,200
2,040
12,240
4,080
25,072
29.152
0
0
0
0
0
0
°x N02
Cont
22,875
1,525
24.400
4,660
24,320
28,980
0
0
0
0
0
0
7,625
3,050
10,675
3,495
18,240
21,735
0
0
0
0
0
0
Bubb
0
0
0
0
0
0
540
108
648
216
4,900
5.116
4.320
432
4.752
1,296
29.400
30.696
540
0
540
108
2,450
2.558
Cont
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
390
390
1,590
6,920
8.510
0
0
0
0
0
0
Totals
86,612
6,813
93,425
20,676
232.709
253,385
9.560
727
10,287
5.588
74,208
79,796
69,448
22,249
91,697
31,411
262 ,956
294,367
14,160
1,439
15,599
3.832
75.729
79,561
-------
Tab.le 3-2 (continued)
u>
Required
PM
California
New investment
Replacement investment
Total initial investment
Annualized capital cost
Annual variable cost
Total annual cost
Colorado
New investment
Replacement investment
Total initial investment
Annualized capital cost
Annual variable cost
Total annual cost
Connecticut
New investment
Replacement investment
Total initial investment
Annualized capital cost
Annual variable cost
Total annual cost
Delaware
Mew investment
Replacement investment
Total i.-iiiial investment
Annualized capital cost
Annual variable cost
Total annual cost
HiVol
0
5,412
5,412
4,422
70,422
74,844
0
2,214
2,214
1,809
28,809
30,618
0
1,553
1,558
1,273
20,273
21,546.
0
246
246
201
3,201
3,402
Tape
9,020
0
9,020
4,510
113,388
117,898
3,075
820
8,895
1,435
36,078
37,513
0
2,050
2,050
2,050
51,540
53,590
0
205
205
205
5,154
5,359
SO,
Bubb
0
1,899
1,899
1,890
41,415
43,305
4,431
127
4,558
1,008
22,088
23,096
4,431
633
5,064
1,512
33,132
•34,644
0
253
253
252
5,522
5,774
Cont
0
3,340
3,340
2,620
12,580
15,200
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8,350
8,350
6,550
31,450
38,000
0
1,670
1,670
1,310
6,290
7,600
CO
Cont
0
29,580
29,580
29,580
181,772
211,352
10,200
1,020
11,220
3,060
18,804
21,864
15,300
2,040
17,340
5,100
31,340
36,440
0
1,020
1,020
1 ,020
6,268
7,288
°x
Cont
0
48,800
48,300
37,280
194,176
231,456
15,250
1,525
16,775
3,495
18,204
21 ,699
15,250
4,575
19,825
5,825
3,034
8,859
0
1,525
1,525
1,165
6,080
7,245
N0x
Bubb
16,200
0
16,200
3,240
73,500
76,740
0
0
0
0
0
0
5,400
0
5,400
1,080
34,500
35,580
0
108
108
108
2,450
2.558
Totals
25,220
89,031
114,251
83,542
687,253
770,795
32,956
5,706
38,662
10,807
123,983
134,790
40,381
19,206
59,587
23,390
205,269
228,659
0
5,027
5.027
4,261
34,965
39,226
HiVol
13,120
5,740
18,860
6,834
108,834
115,668
4,510
4,510
9,020
4,422
70,422
74,844
2,870
4,920
7,790
' 4,489
71,489
75.978
2,460
1,148
3,608
1,340
21,340
22.680
PM
Tape
54,325
0
54,325
10,865
273,162
284,027
13,325
820
14,145
3,485
87,618
91,103
0
7,995
7.995
7,995
201 ,006
209,001
6,150
2,870
9,020
4,100
103,080
107,180
so2
Bubb •
0
2.152
2,152
2,142
46,937
49,079
3,798
127
3,925
882
19,327
20,209
3,798
633
4,431
1,386
30,371
31,757
3,798
1,266
5,064
2,016
44,176
46.192
Cont
25,050
33,400
58,450
30,130
144,670
174,800
41,750
3,340
45,090
9,170
44,030
53,200
41 ,750
31,730
73,480
31,440
150,960
182,400
50,100
23,380
73,480
26,200
125,800
152,000
Proposed
CO Ox
Cont Cont
66,300 99,125
44.880 103,700
111,180 202,825
58,140 94,365
357,276 492,480
415,416 586,845
25 ,'500 38,125
1,020 1,525
26.520 39,650
6,120 6,990
37,608 36,408
43,728 43.398
20,400 30,500
2,040 4,575
22,440 35,075
6,120 8,155
37,608 42,560
43,728 50,715
0 0
4,080 6,100
4,080 6,100
4,080 4,660
25,072 24,320
29,152 28,980
N(
Bubb
6,480
0
6.480
1,296
29,400
30,696 v
0
0
0
0
0
0
11,880
0
11,880
2,376
53,900
56,276
3.240
21,350
24,590
2,160
49,000
51,160
\
Cont
39,000
97,500
136,500
85,860
339,660
425,520
48,750
1,950
50.700
9,540
41 ,520
51 ,060
0
3,900
3,900
3,180
13,840
17.020
0
432
432
6.360
27.680
34.040
Totals
'303,400
287,372
590,772
289,632
1,792.419
2,082,051
175,758
13,292
189,050
40,609
336.933.
377.542
111,198
55,793
166,991
65,141
601,734
666,875
65,748
60,626
126,374
50,916
420.468
471.384
-------
Table 3-2 (continued)
CO
Required
PM
District of Columbia
New investment
Replacement investment
Total initial investment
Annualized capital cost
Annual variable cost
Total annual cost
Florida
New investment
Replacement investment
Total initial investment
Annualized' capital cost
Annual variable cost
Total annual cost
Georgia
New investment
Replacement investment
Total initial investment •
Annualized capital cost
Annual variable cost
Total annual cost
Hawaii
New investment
Replacement investment
Total initial investment
Annualized capital cost
Annual variable cost
Total annual cost
HiVol
0
328
328
268
4,268
. 4,536
0
2,460
2,460
2,010
32,010
34,020
1,230
3,280
4,510
2,881
45,881
48,762
0
246
246
201
3,201
3,402
Tape
0
410
410
410
10,308
10,718
. 8,200
1,230
3,690
2,870
72,156
75,026
12,300
1,025
13,325
3,485
87,618
.91,103
0
205
205
205
5,154
5,359
so2
Bubb
1,899
0
1,899
378
8,283
8,661
0
2,026
2,026
2,016
44,176
46,192
9,495
1,393
10,888
3,276
71,786
75,062
0
127
127
126
2,761
2,887
Cont
0
1,670
1,670
1,310
6,290
7,600
0
8,350
8,350
6,550
31,450
38,000
50,100
6,680
56,780
13,100
62,900
76,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
CO
Cont
0
1,020
1,020
1,020
6,268
7,288
•
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
°x
Cont
0
0
0
1,165
6,080
7,245
0
4,080
18,145
4,660
24,320
28,980
0
1,525
1,525
1,165
6,080
7,245
0
0
0
0
0
0
H02
• Bubb
1,620
432
2,052
324
7,350
7,674
3,780
1,404
5,184
2,160
121,600
123,760
4,860
648
5,508
1,620
36,750
38,370
0
0
0
0
0
0
Totals
3,519
3,860
7,379
4,875
48,847
53,722
11,980
19,550
31,530
20,266
325,712
345,978
77,985
14,551
92,536
25,527
311,015
336,542
0
373
373
532
11,116
11,648
PM
HiVol
1,230
574
1,804
. 670
10,670
11,340
0
2,460
2,460
2,010
32,010
34,020
6,560
3,280
9,840
3,752
59,752
63.504
2.050
574
2,624
804
12,804
13,608
••• Tape
3,075
1,435
4,510
2,050
51,540
53,590
7,175
1,230
8,205
2,665
67,002
69,667
18.450
1,025
19,475
4,715
•118,542
123,257
2,050
205
2.255
615
15.462
16,077
so2
Bubb
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,026
2,026
2,016
44,176
46,192
11,394
1,393
12,787
3,654
80,069
83,723
1,899
633
2,532
1,008
22,088
23,096
•Cent
25,050
5,010
30,060
47.160
37,740
84.900
8,350
8,350
16.700
7,860
37,740
45,600
58,450
6,680
65,130
14,410
69,190
83,600
0
1,670
1,670
1,310
6,290
7,600
Proposed
CO
Cont
15,300
2,040
17,340
5,100
31,340
36,440
0
0
0
0
0
0
V o
3,060
3,060
3,060
18,804
21,864
5.100
1,020
6,120
4,080
12,536
16,616
°x
Cont
7,625
1,525
9,150
2,330
12,160
14,490
0
4,575
4,575
3,495
18,240
21,735
0
1,525
1,525
1,165
6,080
7,245
7,625
1.525
9,150
2,330
24,320
26,650
NC
Bubb
0
0
0
0
0
0
3,780
1,404
5,184
2,160
49,000
51,160
5,400
648
6,048
1,728
39,200
40,928
2,160
540
2,700
972
22,050
23,022
Cont
19,500
3,900
23,400
6.J60
27,680
34,040
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,950
1,950
1,590
6,920
8,510
0
13,650
13,650
0
0
0
Totals
71.780
14,484
86,264
63,670
171,130
234,800
19,305
20,045
39,350
20,206
243,168
268,374
100.254
19,561
119,815
34,074
398,557
432.631 -
20,884
19,817
40.701
11.119
115,550
126,669
-------
Table 3-2 (continued)
CO
oo
Required
PM
Idaho
New investment
Replacement investment
Total initial investment
Annualized capital cost
Annual variable cost
Total annual cost
Illinois
New investment
Replacement investment
Total initial investment
Annualized capital cost
Annual variable cost
Total annual cost
Indiana
New investment
Replacement investment
Total initial investment
Annualized capital cost
Annual variable cost
Total annual cost
Iowa
New investment
Replacement investment
Total initial investment
Annualized capital cost
Annual variable cost
Total annual cost
HiVol
0
1,230
1,230
1,005
16,005
17,010
0
4,592
4,592
3,953
62,953
66,906
0
3,690
3,690
3,015
48,015
51,030
820
2,542
3,362
2,211
35,211
37,422
Tape
3,075
0
3,075
615
15,462
16.077
• o
3,395
3,895
3,895
97,926
101,821
0
3,075
3,075
3,075
77,310
80,385
9,225
205
9,430
2,050
51,540
53,590
so2
Bubb
3,798
0
3,798
756
16,566
17,322
5,064
3,571
8,735
4,662
102,157
106,819
0
3,545
3,545
3,528
77,308
80,836
5,064
506
5,570
1,512
33,132
34,644
Cont
0
1,670
1,670
1,310
6,290
7,600
0
26,720
26,720
20,960
100,640
121,600
0
16,700
16,700
13,100
62,900
76,000
0
1,670
1,670
1,310
6,290
7,600
CO
Cont
0
0
0
0
0
0
5,100
9,180
14,280
10,200
62,680
72,880
20,400
0
20,400
4,080
25,072
29,152
0
0
0
0
0
0
°x
Cont
0
0
0
0
0
0
30,500
9,150
36,650
11,650
60,800
72,450
30,500
0
30,500
4,660
24,320
28,980
7,625
1,525
9,150
2,330
12,160
14,490
N02
Bubb
0
0
0
0
0
0
6,480
0
6,480
1,296
29,400
30,696
0
1,404
1,404
1,404
31,850
33,254
0
216
216
216
4,900
5,116
Totals
6,873
2,900
9,773
3,686
54,323
58,009
47,144
57,208
104,352
56,616
516,556
573,172
50,900
28,414
79,314
32,862
346,775
379,637
22,734
6,664
29.398
9,629
143,233
152,862
HiVol
3,280
2,214
5,494
2,345
37,345
39,690
3,690
9,512
13,202
8,375
133,375
141,750
12,300
7,708
20,008
8,308
132,308
140,616
5,330
2,542
7,872
2,948
46,948
49,896-
PM
Tape
4,100
0
4,100
820
20,616
21,436
12,300
4,510
16,810
6,970
175,236
182,206
19,475
4,920
24,395
8,815
221,622
230,437
11,275
205
•11,480
2,460
61 ,848
64,308
so2
Bubb
5,064
0
5,064
1,008
22,088
23,096
13,293
3,671
16,964
6,300
138,050
144,350
29,118
5,444
. 34,562
11,214
245,729
256,943
5,697
506
6,203
1,638
35,893
37,531
Cont
0
5,010
5,010
3,930
18,870
2,280
50,100
43,420
93,520
41,920
201 ,280
243,200
1.16,900
30,060
146,960
41,920
201 ,280
243,200
16,700
1,670
18,370
3,930
18,870
22,800
Proposed
CO
Cont
0
0
0
0
0
0
35,700
9,180
44,880
16,320
100,288
116,608
-35,700
0
35,700
7,140
43,876
51,016
0
1,020
1,020
1,020
6,263
7,288
°x
Cont
0
0
0
0
0
0
45,750
9,150
54,900
13,980
72,960
86,940
53,375
0
53,375
8,155
42,560
50.715
7,625
1,525
9,150
2,330
12,160
14,490
N02
Bubb
0
0
0
0
0
0
7,020
324
7,344
1,728
39,200
40,928
23,220
3,996
27,218
7,560
171,500
179,060
1,080
216
1,296
4.320
9,800
10,232
Cont
0
0
0
0
0
0
9,750
19,500
29,250
17,490
76,120
93,610
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Totals
12,444
7,224
12,444
8,103
98,919
107,022
177,603
99,267
276,870
113,083
936.509 •
1,049,592
173,188
52,128
225.316
93,112
1.058.875
1,151,987
47,707
7,684
55,391
18.646
191,787
210,433
-------
Table 3-2 (continued)
CO
ID
Required
PM
Kansas
New investment
Replacement investment
Total initial investment
Annuali zed capital cost
Annual variable cost
Total annual cost
Kentucky
New investment
Replacement investment
Total initial investment
Annualized capital cost
Annual variable cost
Total annual cost
Louisiana
New investment
Replacement investment
Total initial investment
Annualized capital cost
Annual variable cost
Total annual cost
Maine
New investment
Re'plice-ent investment
Total initial investment
Annualized capital cost
Annual variable cost
Total annual cost
HiVol
0
2,788
2J88
2,278
36,278
'38,556
0
2,460
2,460
2,010
32,010
34,020
0
410
410
335
5,335
5,670
2,870
492
3,362
871
13,871
14,742
Tape
7,175
205
7,380
1,640
41,232
42,872
0
2,255
2,255
2,255
56,694
58,949
0
410
410
410
10,308
10,718
2,050
205
2,255
615
15,462
16,077
so2
Bubb
0
760
760
756
16.566
17,322
0
1,7/2
1,775
1,764
38,654
40,418
3,165
633
3,798
1,260
27,610
28,870
3,165
633
3,798
1,260
27,610
28,870
Cont
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5,010
5,010
3,930
18,870
22,800
0
8,350
8,350
6,550
31,450
38,000
8,350
3,340
11,690
3,930
18,870
22,800
CO
Cont
0
1,020
1,020
1,020
6,268
_7,288
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 '
0
0
0
0
0
-0
0
0
0
°x
Cont
15,250
1,525
16,775
3,495
18,240
21,735
0
4,575
4,575
3,495
18,240
21,735
0
7,625 '
7,625
5,825
30,400
36,225
0
0
0
0 .
0
0
N0x
Bubb
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,080
1,080
1,080
2,450
3,530
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Totals
22,425
6,298
28,723
9,189
118,584
127,773
0
17,152
17,152
14,534
166,918
181,452
3,165
17,428
20,593
14,380
105,103
119,483
16,435
4,e?o
21,105
6,676
75,813
82,489
PM
HiVol
10,250
2.788
13,038
3,953
62.953
66,906
35,670
6,396
42,066
11,055
176,055
187,110
1,640
410
2,050
603
9,603
10.206
6.560
492
7,052
1,474
23,474
24,948
Tape
9,225
205
9,430
2,050
51,540
53.590
15.375
3,485
18,860
6,560
164,928
171,488
1,025
410
1 ,435.
615
1 15,462
16,077
3,075
205
3.275
820
20,616
21.436
so2
Bubb
17,724
1,013
18,737
4,536
99,396
103,932
56,970
7,596
64,566
18,900
414,150
433,050
5,064
633
5,697
1,638
35,893
37,531
10,761
633
11,394
2,772
60,742
63,514
Cont
16.700
0
16,700
2.620
12,580
15,200
91.850
20,040
111,890
30,130
144,670
174,800
8,350
8,350
16,700
7,860
37,740
45,600
8,350
3,340
11.690
3,930
18,870
22,800
Proposed .
CO
Cont
10,200
3,060
13.260
5,100
31,340
36,440
56,100
3,060
59,160
14,280
87,752
102,032
; 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
°x
Cont
30,500
1.525
32,025
5,825
30.400
36,225
68,625
4,575
73,200
13,980
72,960
86,940
23.704
7,625
31.329
6,990
36,480
43,470
0
0
0
0
0
0
N02
Bubb
17.280
324
17.604
3,780
85.750
89,530
58,860
5.508
64.368
17.280
392.000
409,280
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cont
9,750
0
9,750
1,590
6,920
> 8,510
9.750
3,900
13,650
4,770
20,760
25,530
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Totals
121 ,629
8,915
130,544
29,454
380,879
410,333
393,200
54,560
447,760
116,955
1.473,275
1,590,230
23,704
17.428
41,132
17,706
135,178
152,884
28,746
4,670
33.416
8,996
123,702
132,694
-------
Table 3-2 (continued)
Required
PM
Maryland
New investment
Replacement investment
Total initial investment
Annualized capital cost
Annual variable cost
Total annual cost
Massachusetts
New investment
Replacement investment
Total initial investment
Annualized capital cost
Annual variable cost
Total annual cost
Michigan
New investment
Replacement investment
Total initial investment
Annualized capital cost
Annual variable cost
Total annual cost
Minnesota
New investment
Replacement investment
Total initial investment
Annualized capital cost
Annual variable cost
Total annual cost
HiVol
0
2,542
2,542
2,077
33,077
35.154
0
2,788
2,788
2,278
36,278
38,556
0
2,378
2,378
1,943
30,943
32,886
0
2,214
2,214
1,809
28,809
30,618
Tape
0
2,870
2,870
2,870
72,156
75,026
4,100
2,460
6,560
3,280
82,464
85,744
11,275
205
11,480
2,460
61,848
64,308
0
2,460
2,460
• 2,460
61 ,848
64,308
SO
Bubb
0
2,659
2,659
2.646
57,981
60,62?
0
2,659
2,659
2,646
57,981
60,627
7,596
760
8,356
2,268
49,698
51,966
633
1,899
2,532
2,016
44,176
46,192
2
Cont
0
13,360
13,360
1,048
50,320
60,800
8,350
13,360
21,710
11,790
56,610
68,400
0
13,360
13,360
10,480
50,320
60,800
0
10,020
10,020
7,860
37,740
45,600
CO
Cont
0
6.120
6,120
6.120
'37,608
43,728
15,300
3,060
18,360
6,120
37,608
43,728
0'
0
0
0
0
0
•0
4,080
4,080
4,080
25,072
29,152
°x
Cont
0
9,150
9,150
6,990
36.480
43.470
22,875
4,575
27,450
6,990
36.480
43,470
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
N02
Bubb
0
1,512
1,512
1,512
34,300
35,812
0
1,728
1,728
1,728
39,200
40,928
8,100
648
8,748
2.268
5,145
53,718
540
972
1,512
1,080
2,450
3,530
Totals
0
24,853
24,853
23,263
321 .922
345,185
50,625
30,630
81,255
34,832
346,621
' 381,453
26,971
17,351
44,322
19,419
197,954
217,373
1,173
21,645
22,818
19,305
200,095
219,400
PM
HiVol
4,920
5,084
10.004
4,958
78,958
83,916
6,970
3,772
10,742
4,221
67,221
71,442
19,270
6,560
25,830
8,509
135,509
144,018
0
5,576
5,576
4,556
72,556
77.112
Tape
9,225
3,280
12,505
5,125
128,850
133,975
9,225
2,460
11,685
4,305
108,234
112,539
28,700
205
28,905
5,945
149,466
155,411
1,025
4,510
5,535
4,715
118,542
123,257
so2
Bubb
8,862
3,038
11,900
4,788
104,918
109,706
12,660
5,824
18,484
8,316
182,226
190,542
18,990
760
19,750
4,536
99,396
103,932
3,165
1,899
5,064
2,520
55,220
57,740
Cont
75,150
28,390
103,540
34,060
163,540
197,600
116,900
13,360
130,260
28,820
138,380
167,200
91,850
26,720
118,570
35,370
169,830
205,200
41,750
11,690
53,440
15,720
75,480
91 ,200
Proposed
CO
Cont
40,800
12,240
53,040
20,400
125.360
145,760
40,800
3,060
43,860
11,220
68,948
80,168
51,000
0
51 ,000
10,200
62,680
72,880
0
4,080
4,080
4,080
25,072
29.152
°x
Cont
45,750
19,825
65.575
22,135
115,520
137,655
68,625
4,575
73,200
13,980
72,960
. 86,940
38,125
0
38,125
5,825
30,400
36,225
15,250
4,575
19,825
5.825
30.400
36,225
N02
Bubb
7,560
2,160
9,720
3,672
83,300
86,972
8,640
4,963
13,608
6,696
151,900
158,596
16,200
648
16,843
3,888
88,200
92,088
540
972
1.512
1,080
2,450
3,530
Cont
0
7,800
7,800
6,360
27,680
34,040
68,250
0
68,250
11,130
48,440
59.570
39,000
1.950
40,950
7,950
34,600
42,550
0
5,850
5,850
4,770
20,760
25,530
Totals
192,267
81,817
274,084
101,498
828,126
929,624
332,070
33,019 .
370,089
88,688
838,309
926,997
303,135
36,843
339,978
82,223
770,081
852.304
61,730
39,152
100,882
43,266
400,480
443.746
-------
Table 3-2 (continued)
Required
PM
Mississippi
New investment
Replacement investment
Total initial investment
Annualized capital cost
Annual variable cost
Total annual cost
Missouri
New investment
Replacement investment
Total initial investment
Annualized capital cost
Annual variable cost
Total annual cost
Montana
New investment
Replacement investment
Total initial investment
Annualized capital cost
Annual variable cost
Total annual cost
' _.• ' . .1
if.Vi itrent
^;:.j:it investment
'lotel initial investment
Annualized capital cost
Annual variable cost
Total annual cost
HiVol
0
902
902
737
11,737
12,474
0
2,460
2,460
2,010
32,010
34,020
2,460
574
3,034
871
13,871
. 14,742
0
984
984
804
12,804
13,608
Tape
6,150
0
6,150
1,230
30,924
32,154
0
2,870
2,870
2,870
72,156
75,026
2,050
205
2,255
• 615
15,462
16,077
0
615
615
. 615
15,462
16.077
so2
Bubb
3,798
127
3,925
882
19,327
20,209
3,165
760
3,925
1,386
30,371
31,757
5,697
253
5,950
1,386
30,371
31,757
3,165
127
3,292
756
16,566
17,322
Cont
16,700
0
16,700
2,620
12,580
15,200
0
6,680
6,680
5,240
25,160
30,400
8,350
3,340
11.690
3,930
18,870
22,800
8,350
0
8,350
1.310
6.290
7,600
CO
Cont
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6,120
6,120
6.120
37,608
43,728
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
°x '
Cont
15.250
0
15,250
2,330
12,160
1.4,490
0
9,150
9,150
6,990
36,480
43,470
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
N02
Bubb
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,160
324
2,484
756
17,150
17,906
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,700
108
2,808
648
14,700
15.348
Totals
41 ,898
1,029
42,927
7.799
86,728
94,527
5,325
28,364
33,689
25,372
250,935
276,307
18,557
4,372
22,929
6,802
78,574
85,376
14,215
1,834
16,049
4,133
65,822
69,955
... PM
HiVol
4,920
1,394
6,314
1,943
30,943
32,886
2,870
5,576
8,446
5,025
80,025
85,050
2,870
574
3,444
938
14,938
15.876
0
2,378
2,378
1,943
30,943
32,886
Tape
6,150
0
6.150
1.230
30.924
32,154
5,125
3,075
8,200
4,100
103,080
107,180
2,050
205
2,255
615
15,462
16,077
1.025
615
1.640
820
20,616
21,436
so2
Bubb
8,862
127
8,989
1,890
41,415
43,305
0
760
760
756
16,566
17,322
5,697
253
5,950
1,386
30,371
31,757
3.165
127
3,292
756
16.566
17,322
Cont
33,400
0
33,400
5,240
25,160
30,400
33,400
11,690
45,090
14,410
69,190
83,600
16,700
3,340
20,040
5,240
25,160
30,400
8.350
0
8,350
1,310
6,290
760
Proposed
CO
Cont
0
0
0
0
• o
0
15,300
10,200
25,500
13,260
81 ,484
94,744
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
°x
Cont
22,875
0
22,875
3.495
18,240
21,735
30,500
13,725
44,225
15,145
79,040
94,185
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
N02
Bubb
540
0
540
108
2,450
2,558
540
324
864
432
9,800
10,232
0
0
0
0
0
0
3,240
108
3,348
756
1,715
17,906
Cont
0
0
0
0
0
0
29,250
17,550
46,800
19,080
83,040
10,212
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Totals
76,747
1,521
78,268
13,906
149,132
163,038
116,985
62,900
179,885
72,208
522,225
594,433
27.317
4,372
31 ,689
8,179
85.931
94,110
15,780
3,228
19,008
5,585
76,130
81,715
-------
Table 3-2 (continued)
ro
Required .
PM
Nevada
New investment
Replacement investment
Total initial investment'
Annualized capital cost
Annual variable cost
Total annual cost
New Hampshire
New investment
Replacexent investment
Total initial investment
Annualized capital cost
Annual variable cost
Total annual cost
New Jersey
New investment
Replacement investment
Total initial investment
Annualized capital cost
Annual variable cost
Total annual cost
New Mexico
New investment
Replacement investment
Total initial investment
Annual 1 zed capital cost
Annual variable cost
Total annual cost
HiVol
0
1,066
1,066
871
13,871
14,742
0
656
656
536
8,536
9,072
0
1,558
1,558
1,273
20,273
21 ,545
0
1,312
1,312
1,072
17.072
18,144
Tape
1,025
410
1,435
615
15,462
16,077
2,050
0
2,050
410
10,308
10,718
0
1,025
1,025
1,025
25,770
26,795
1,025
410
1,435
615
15,462
16,077
so2
Bubb
0
760
760
756
16,566
17,322
1,899
506
2,405
882
19,327
20,209
8,229
0
8,229
1,638
35,893
37,531
1,266
760
2,026
1,008
22,088
23,096
Cont
16,700
0
16,700
2,620 '
12,580
15,200
16,700
0
16,700
2,620
12,580
15,200
0
11,690
11,690
9,170
44,030
53,200
0
1,670
1,670
1,310
6,290
7,600
CO
Cont
5,100
1,020
6,120
2,040
12,536
14,576
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8,160
8,160
8,160
50.144
58,304
0
1,020
1,020
1,020
6,268
7,288
°x
Cont
0
3,050
3,050
2,330
12,160
14,490
0
0
0
0
0
0
22,875
432
23,307
8,155
42,560
50,715
7,625
3,050
10,675
3,495
18,240
21,735
N02
Bubb
0
540
540
540
12,250
12,790
0
0
0
0
0
0
3,780
0
3,780
756
17,150
17,906
0
0
0
0
0
0
Totals
22,825
6,846
29,671
9.772
95,425
105,197
20,649
1,162
21,811
4,448
50,751
55,199
12,009
31 ,094
43,103
30,177
235,820
265.997
9,916
8,222
18,138
8,520
85,420
93,940
PM
HiVol
0
2,788
2,788
2,278
36,278
38,556
2,870
2,050
4,920
2,144
34,144
36,288
0
4,100
4,100
3,350
5,335
56,700
4,100
3,444
7,544
3,484
55,484
58,968
Tape
2,050
410
2,460
820
20,616
21,436
6,150
0
6,150
1,230
30,924
32,154
0
4,510
4,510
• 4,510
113,388
117,898
7,175
410
7.585
1,845
46,386
48,231
so2
Bubb
0
760
760
756
16,566
17,322
5.697
506
6,203
1,638
35,893
37,531
3,165
0
3,165
630
13,805
14,435
10,128
760
10,888
2,772
60,742
63.514
Cont
16,700
0
16,700
2,620
12,580
15,200
33,400
0
33,400
5,240
25,160
'30,400
8,350
2,659
11,009
28,820
138,380
167,200
16,700
5,010
21,710
6,550
31 ,450
38,000
Proposed
CO
Cont
5,100
1,020
6,120
2,040
12,536
14,576
10,200
0
10,200
2,040
12,536
14,576
0
36,740
36,740
22,440
137,896
160,336
5.100
2,040
7,140
3,060
18,804
21 ,864
°x
Cont
7,625
3,050
10,675
3.495
18,240
21,735
7.625
0
7,625
1,165
6,080
7,245
22,873
6,100
28,973
8,155
42,560
50,715
7,625
3,050
10,765
3,495
18,240
21,735
N02
Bubb
0
540
540 '
540
12,250
12,790
6,480
108
6,588
1,404
31 ,850
33,254
4,320
0
4,320
864
19,600
20,464
6,480
648
7,128
1,944
44,100
46,044
Cont
0
5,850
5,850
4,770
20,760
25,530
' 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Totals
31 ,475
14,418
' 45.893
17,319
149,826
167,145
72.422.
2,664
75,086
14,861
176,587
191,448
38.710
54,109
92,819
68,769
470,964
539,733
57,305
15,362
72,667
23,150
275,206
298,356
-------
Table 3-2 (continued)
CO
Required
New York
New investment
Replacement investment
Total initial investment
Annual i zed capital cost
Annual variable cost
Total annual cost
North Carolina
New investment
Replacement investment
Total initial investment
Annuali zed capital cost
Annual variable cost
Total annual cost
North Dakota
New investment
Replacement investment
Total initial investment
Annuali zed capital cost
Annual variable cost
Total annual cost
Ohio
New investment
Replacement investment
Total initial investment
Anrualized capital cost
Annual variable cost
Total annual cost
HiVol
0
5,904
5,904
' 4,824
76,824
81,648
0
4,428
4,428
3,618
57,618
61,236
0
492
492
402
6,402
6,804
0
6,396
6,396
5,226
83,226
88,452
PM
Tape
0
5,125
5,125
1,675
26,675
28,350
0
3,485
3,485
3,485
87,618
91,103
2,050
0
2,050
410
10,308
10,718
20,500
2,460
22,960
' 6,560
164,928
171,488
so2
* Bubb
14,559
80,138
94,697
4,914
107,679
112,593
0
1,266
1,266
1,260
27,610
28,870
633
127
760
252
5,522
5,774
9,495
3,165
12,660
5,040
110,440
115,480
Cont
0
31,730
31,730
24,890
119,510
144,400
0
1,670
1,670
1,310
6,290
7,600
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CO
Cont
0
13,260
13,260
.13,260
81 ,484
94,744
0
0
0
0
0
. 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
'0
0
0
0
0
•0
°x
Cont
53,375
13.725
67,100
18,640 .
97,280
11,592
0
466
466
2,330
12,160
14.490
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
N02
Bubb
10,260
756
11,016
2.808
63,700
66,508
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Totals
78,194
150,638
228,832
71,011
573,152
644,163
0
11,315
11,315
12,003
191,296
203,299
2,683
619
3,302
1,064
22,232
23,296
29,995
12,021
42,016
16,826
358,594
375,420
PM
HiVol
43,460
18,860
62,320
22,512
358,512
381 ,024
45,510
4,428
49,938
11,055
176.055
187.110
0
1.230
1,230
1,005
16,005
17,010
21,730
16,564
38,294
17,085
272.085
289,170
Tape
10,250
9,635
19,885
11,685
293,778
305,463
28,700
3,485
32,185
9,225
231 ,930
241,155
2,050
0
2,050
410
10,308
10,718
29,725
2.460
32,185
8,405
211,314
219,719
so2
Bubb
3,165
760
3,925
1,386
30,371
31,757
76,593
1,266
77,859
16,506
361.691
378.197
633
127
760
252
5,522
5,774
37,347
4,431
41 ,778
11,844
259,534
271 ,378
Cont
283,900
75.150
359,050
103,490
496,910
600,400
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
' 0
0
0
0
0
40,080
40,080
31 ,440
150,960
182,400
Proposed
CO Ox
Cont Cont
35.700 106,750
22,440 13,725
58,140 120,475
29.580 26,795
181.772 139,840
211,352 166.635
4,080 3,495
0 466
4,080 3,961
4,080 5,825
25,072 30,400
29,152 36.225
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
N02
Bubb Cont
11,340
756
12.096
3,024
68,600
71 ,624
0
0
0
0
0
0
540
0
0
108
2,450
2.558
0
0
0
• o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Totals
494.560
141,326
635,886
198,472
1,569,783
1,768,255
158,378
9,645
168,023
46,691
825,148
871,839
3,223
1,357
4.580
1.775
34,285
36 ,060
88,802
63,535
152,337
68,774
893,893
962,667
-------
Table 3-2 (continued)
Required
PM
Oklahoma
New investment
Replacement investment
Total initial investment
Annualized capital cost
Annual variable cost
Total annual cost
Oregon
New investment
Replacement investment
Total initial investment
Annualized capital cost
. Annual variable cost
Total annual cost
Pennsylvania
• New investment
Replacement investment
Total initial investment
Annualized capital cost
Annual variable cost
Total annual cost
Puerto Rico
New investment
Replacerent investr.ent
Total initial investment
Annualized capital cost
Annual variable cost
Total annual cost
HiVol
0
1,968
1,968
1,608
25,608
27,216
0
1,640
1,640
1,340
21 ,340
22,680
0
5,576
5,576
4,556
72,556
77,112
0
246
246
201
3,201
3,402
Tape
4,100
615
4,715
1,435
36,078
37,513
4,100
1,025
5,125
1,845
46,386
48,231
18,450
3,075
21,525
• 6,765
170,082
176,847
1,025
0
1,025
205
5,154
5,359
so2
Bubb
0
886
886
882
19.327
20,209
633
633
1,266
756
16,566
17,322
17,724
0
17,724
3,528
77.308
80,836
1,266
127
1,393
378
8,283
8,661
Cont
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,670
1,670
1,310
6,290
7,600
0
23,380
23,380
18,340
88,060
106,400
8,350
0
8,350
1,310
6,290
7,600
CO
Cont
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3,060
3,060
3,060
18,240
21,864
ti-
ll, 220
11,220
11.220
68,948
80,168
.0
0
0
0
0
0
°x
Cont
15,250
3,050
18,300
4.660
24,320 •
28,980
7,625
3,050
10,675
3,495
18,240
21,735
30,500
10,675
41,175
12,815
66,880
79,695
0
0
0
0
0
0
N02
Bubb
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
24,300
0
24.300
4,860
110,250
115,110
3
0
0
0
0
0
Totals
19,350
6,519
25,869
8,585
105,333
113,918
12,358
8,018
20,376
11,806
127,626
139,432
90,974
53,926
144,900
62,084
654,084
716,168
10,641
373
11.014
2,094
22,928
25,022
PM
HiVol
7,790
6,478
14,268
6.566
104.566
111,132
0
2,214
2,214
1,809
28,809
30,618
14,350
6,642
20,992
7,772
123.772
131.544
7.380
328
7,708
1,474
23,474
24,948
Tape
7,175
615
7,785
2,050
51 ,540
53.590
4,100
1,025
5,125
1,845
46,386
48,231
46,125
3,075
49,200
12,300
309,240
321 ,540
7,175
0
7,175
1,435
36,078
37,513
so2
Bubb
4,431
1,013
5,444
1.890
56,415
58,305
1,266
633
1,899
882
19,327
20,209
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,266
127
1,393
378
8,283
8,661
Cont
25,050
0
25,050
3,930
18,870
22,800
0
1,670
1,670
1,310
6,290
7,600
350.700
28,390
379,090
77,290
371,110
448,400
158,650
0
158,650
24,890
119,510
144,400
Proposed
CO Ox
Cont Cont
5,100 15,250
3,060 3,050
8.160 18,300
4,080 4,660
25,072 24,320
29,152 28,980
5,100 7,625
3,060 3,050
8,160 10,675
4,080 3,495
25.072 18.240
29,152 21,735
193,800 282,125
12,240 10,675
206,040 292,800
51 ,000 51 ,260
313,400 267,520
364,400 318,780
5,100 0
0 0
5,100 0
1 ,020 0
6,268 0
7,288 0
N02
Bubb.
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,160
0
2,160
432
9,800
10,232
0
0
0
0
0
0
8.640
324
8,964
2,052
46,550
48,602
Cont
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
516,750
13,650
530,400
95,400
415,200
510,600
0
0
0
0
0
0
Totals
39,746
14,216
53,962
23,176
280,783
303,959
20,251
11,652
31,903 '
13,853
153.924
167,777
140,385
74,672
215,057
295,022
1,800,242
2,095.264
188,211
779
188,990
31 ,249
240,163
271,412
-------
Table 3-2 (continued)
Requl red
PM
Rhode Island
New investment
Replacement investment
Total initial investment
Annualized capital cost
Annual variable cost
Total annual cost
South Carolina
New investment
Replacement investment
Total initial investment
Annualized capital cost
Annual variable cost
Total annual cost
South Dakota
New investment
Replacement investment
Total initial investment
Annualized capital cost
Annual variable cost
Total annual cost
Tennessee
New investment
Replacement investment
Total initial investment
Annualized capital cost
Annual variable cost
Total annual cost
HiVol
0
574
574
469
7,469
7,938
0
3,280
3,280
2,680
42,680
1 45,360
1,640
164
• 1,804
402
6,402
6,804
0
3,198
3,198
2,613
41,613
44,226
Tape
4,100
0
4,100
820
20,616
21,436
5,125
615
5,740
1,640
41,232
42,872
1 ,025
0
1,025
205
5,154
5,359
12,300
' 820
13,120
3,280
82,464
85,744
so2
Bubb
0
633
633
630
13,805
14,435
0
. 2,152
2,152
2,142
46,937
49,079
2,532
0
2,532
504
11,044
11,548
5,697
633
6,330
1,764
38,654
40,418
Cont
16,700
0
0
2,620
12,580
15,200
8,350
3,340
11,690
3,930
18,870
22,800
0
Q
0
0
0
0
16,700
3,340
20,040
5,240
25,160
30,400
CO
Cont
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Q
0
0
0
0
0
0
°x
Cont
0
0
. 0
0
0
0
7.625
0
7.625
1,165
6,080
7,245
0
0
0
0
0
0
7,625
6,100
13,725
5,825
30,400
36.225
N02
Bubb
0
• 648
648
648
14,700
15,348
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
. 0
1,188
1,188
1,188
26,950
28.138
Totals
20,800
1,855.
22,655
4,620
69,170
73,790
21,100
9,387
30,487
11,557
1.155,799
167,356
5,197
164
5,361
1,111
22,600
23,711
42,322
14,459
56.781
19,910
245,241
265,151
PM
HiVol
2,870
1,476
4,346
1,675
26,675
28.350
5,330
4,510
9,840
4.556
72,556
77,112
1,640
164
1,804
402
6,402
6,804
1.640
7,544
9,184
6,432
102,432
108,864
Tape
4,100
0
4,100
820
20,616
21.436
7,175
615
7,790
2,050
51 ,540
53,590
1,025
0
1,025
205
5,154
5,359
12,300
820
13,120
3,280
82,464
85.744
so2
Bubb
1,899
2,279
4,178
2,646
57,981
60,627
12,027
2,532
14,559
4,914
107,679
112,593
2,532
0
2,532
504
11,044
11.548
25,320
633
25,953
5,670
124,245
129.915
Cont
33,400
0
33,400
5,240
25,160
30,400
33,400
3,340
36,740
7,860
37,740
45.600
0
0
0
0
0
0
33,400
3,340
36,740
7,860
37,740
45,600
Proposed
CO
Cont
20,400
0
20,400
4,080
25,072
29,152
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5,100
4,080
9,180
5,100
31,340.
36,440
°x
Cont
30,500
0
30.500
4,660
24,320
28.980
7.625
0
7,625
1,165
6,080
7,245
0
0
0
0
0
0
22,875
6,100
28,975
8.155
42.560
50.715
N02
Bubb
3,780
1,944
5,724
2,700
61,250
63,950
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10,800
8,640
19,440
3,888
88,200
92,088
Cont
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
19,500
0
19,500
3,180
13,840
17,020
Totals
96,949
5,699
102,648
21,821
241,074
262.895
65,557
6,487
72,044
20.545
275,595
296,140
5,197
164
5,361
1,111
22,600
23,711
130.935
31,157
162,092
43.565
522,821
566.386
-------
Table 3-2 (continued)
CT>
Required
PM
Texas
New investment
Replacement investment
Total initial investment
Anr.ualized capital cost
Annual variable cost
Total annual cost
Utah
New investment
Replacement investment
Total initial investment
Annualized capital cost
Annual variable cost
Total annual cost
Vermont
New investment
Replacement investment
Total initial investment
Annualized capital cost
Annual variable cost
Total annual cost
Virginia
New investment
Replacement investment
Total initial investment
Annualized capital cost
Annual variable cost
Total annual cost
HiVol
0
4,264
4,264
3,484
55,484
58,968
1,230
656
1,886
737
11,737
12,474
0
328
328
268
4,263
4,535
0
4,510
4,510
3,685
58,685
62,370
Tape
17,425
615
18,040
4,100
103,080
107,180
0
615
615
615
15,462
16,077
0
205
205
205
5,154
5,359
9,225
2,255
11,480
4,100
103.080
107,180
so2
Bubb
0
4,684
4,684
4,662
102,157
106,819
3,165
506
3,671
1,134
24,849
25,983
1,899
127
2,026
504
11,044
11.548
0
2,152
2,152
2,142
46,937
49.079
Cont
100.200
0
100.200
15,720
75,480
91 ,200
0
3,340
340
2,620
12,580
15,200
0
1,670
1,670
1,310
6,290
7,600
25,050
3,340
28,390
6,550
31,450
38,000
CO
Cont
5,100
0
5,100
1,020
6,268
7,268
0
2,040
2,040
2,040
12,536
14,576
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,040
2,040
2,040
12,536
14,576
°x
Cont
144,875
0
144,875
22,135
115,520
137.655
0
3,050
3,050
216
4,900
5,116
0
0
0
0
0
0
22,875
6,100
28,975
8,155
42,560
50,715
N02
Bubb
0
0
0
0
0
0
3,240
432
3,672
1,080
24.500
25,580
0
0
0
0
0
0
540
2,160
2,700
2,268
51,450
53,718
Totals
267,600
95,632
277,163
51,121
457,989
509,110
7,635
10,639
18,274
8,442
106,564
115,006
1,899
2,330
4,229
2,287
26,756
29,043
57,690
22,557
80,247
28,940
346 ,698
375,638
HiVol
33,210
11,480
44,690
14,807
235,807
250,614
4,510
656
5,166
1,273
20,273
21,546
1,230
574
1,804
670
10,670
11,270
14,350
5,986
20,336
7,236
115,236
122,472
PM
Tape
22,550
615
23,165
5,125
128,850
133,975
0
1,025
1,025
1,025
25,770
26,795
1,025
205
1,230
410
10,308
10,718
12,300
2,255
14,555
4,715
118,542
123,257
so2
Bubb
75,960
6,457
82,417
21,546
472,131
493,677
6,963
506
12,469
1,890
41,415
43,305
1,266
127
1,393
378
8,283
8,661
15,192
2,912
18,104
5,922
129,767
135.689
Cont
509,350
0
509,350
79,910
383,690
463,600
'8.350
8,350
16,700
7,860
37,740
45,600
33,400
3,340
36,740
7,860
37,740
45,600
58,450
3,340
61,790
11,790
56,610
68,400
Proposed
CO Ox
Cont Cont
402,900 617,625
6 0
402,900 617,625
80,580 94,365
495,172 492,480
575,752 586,845
5.100 7,625
4,080 6,100
9,180 13,725
5,100 5,825
31,340 30,400
36,440 36,225
0 0
1,020 1,525
1,020 1,525
1,020 1,165
6,268 6,080
7,288 7,245
20,400 22,875
3,060 6,100
23,460 28,975
7,140 8,155
43,876 42,560
51,016 50,715
N02
Bubb
0
0
0
0
0
0
5,940
432
6,372
1,620
36,750
38,370
0
0
0
0
0
0
9,720
2,160
11.880
4,104
93,100
97,204
Cont
770,250
0
770,250
125,610
546,680
672.290
9.750
9,750
19,500
9,540
41.520
51 ,060
0
1,950
1,950
1,590
6,920
8,510
0
3,900
3,900
3,180
13.840
17,020
Totals
2,431,845
18,552
2,450,397
421,943
2,754,810
3,176,753
48,238
30,899
79,137
34,133
265,208
299,341
36,921
8,741
45,662
13,093
86,269
99,362
153,287
29,713
183,000
52,242
613,531
665,773
-------
Table 3-2 (continued)
Required
Ptt
Washington
New investment
Replacement investment
Total initial investment
Annualized capital cost
Annual variable cost
Total annual cost
West Virginia
New investment
Replacement investment
Total initial investment
Annualized capital cost
Annual variable cost
Total annual cost
Wisconsin
New investment
Replacement investment
.Total initial investment
Annualized capital cost
Annual variable cost
Total annual cost
Wyomi ng
New investment
Replacement investment
Total initial investment
Annualized capital cost
Annual variable cost
Total annual cost
HiVol
0
2,542
2,542
2,077
33,077
35,154 .
0
1,968
1,968
1,608
25.608
27,216
0
1,968
1,968
1,608
25,608
27,216
410
492
902
469
7,469
7,938
Tape
0
2,870
2,870
2,870
72,156
75,026
0
' 1,025
1,025
1,025
25,770
26,795
50,225
615
50,840
2,050
51,540
53,590
2,050
0
2,050
410
10,308
10,718
so2
Bubb
6,963
0
6,963
1,386
30.371
31,757
0
1,266
1,266
1,260
27,610
28,870
0
1,013
1,013
1,008
22,088
23,096
1.266
127
1,393
378
8.283
8,661
Cont
0
5,010
5,010
' 3,930
18,870
22,800
16,700
0
16,700
2,620
12,580
15.200
0
1,670
1,670
1,310
6,290
7,600
0
0
0
0
0
0
CO
Cont
0
7,140
' 7,140
7,140
43,876
51,016
0
0
0
0
• o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
°x
Cont
0
7,625
7,625
5,825
30,400
36,225
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6,100
6,100
4,660
24,320
28,980
0
0
0
0
0
0
N02
' Bubb
5,400
0
5,400
1.080
24.500
25,580
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,620
756
2,376
1,080
24,500
25,580
0
0
0
0
0
0
Totals
12,363
25,187
37,550
24,308
253,250
277,558
16,700
4,259
20.959
6,513
91,568
98,081
51 ,845
12,122
63,967
11,716
154,346
166,062
3,726
619
4,345
1,257
26,060
27,317
HiVol
410
5,822
6,232
4,828
76,824
81,648
1.230
2,788
4,018
14,874
39,479
54,353
1,230
5,822
7,052
4,958
78,958
83,916
1,640
492
2,132
670
10.670
11,340
PM
Tape
1.025
3,690
4,715
3.895
97,926
101.821
2,050
4,510
6,560
4,920
123,696
128.616
9.225
615
9.840
2,460
. 61,848
64,308
2,050
0
2,050
410
10,308
10,718
so2
Bubb
2,532
0
2,532
504
11,044
11,548
5,064
1,646
6,710
2,646
57,981
60,627
5,064
2,785
7.849
3,780
82.830
86,610
1,266
127
1,393
378
8.283
8,661
Cont
8,350
33,400
41,750
27,510
132,090
159,600
16,700
0
16,700
2,620
12,580
15,200
41 ,750
6,680
48,430
11,790
56,610
68,400
0
0
0
0
0
0
Proposed
CO
Cont
0
9,180
9,180
9,180
56,412
65,592
0
1,020
1,020
1,020
6,268
7,288
40,800
1,020
41 ,820
9.180
56.412
65,592
0
0
0
0
0
0
°x
Cont
0
10,675
10,675
8,155
42,560
50,715
0
4.575
4,575
3,495
18,240
21,735
38,125
9,150
47,275
12,815
66,880
79,695
0
0
0
0
0
0
N02
Bubb
5,400
B
5,400
1.080
2,450
25,580
0
0
0
0
0
0
540
756
1,296
864
19,600
20,464
0
• 0
0
0
0
0
Cont
0
> 5,850
5,850
4,770
20,760
25,530
0
0
0
0
0
0
48,750
390
49,140
9,540
41 ,520
51 ,060
0
0
0
0
0
0
Totals
17,717
68,617
86,334
59,922
440.066
499,988
25,044 '
13,519
38,563
29,575
258,244
287,819
185.484
27,218
212,702
55,387
464,658
520.045
• 4,956
619
5,575
1,458
29.261
30,719
-------
Table 3-2 (continued)
00
Required
PM
American Samoa
New investment
Replacement investment
Total initial investment
Annualized capital cost
Annual variable cost
Total annual cost
Guam
New investment
Replacement investment
Total initial investment
Annualized capital cost
Annual variable cost
Total annual cost
U.S. Virgin Island
New investment
Replacement investment
Total initial investment
Annualized capital cost
Annual variable cost
Total annual cost
HiVol
410
0
410
67
1,067
1,134
410
0
410
67
1,067
1,134
0
246
246
201
3,201
3,402
Tape
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
205
205
205
5,154
5,359
SO
Bubb
633
0
633
126
2,761
2,887
1,899
0
1,899
378
8,283
8,661
633
253
886
378
8,283
8,661
2
Cont
0
0
0
0
0
0
8,350
0
8,350
1,310
6.290
7,600
8.350
0
8,350
1,310
6,290
7,600
CO
Cont
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
°x
Cont
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 .
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
N02
Bubb
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Totals
1,043
0
1,043
193
3,828
4,021
10,659
0
10,659
1,755
15 ,£40
17,395
8,983
704
9,687
2,094
22,928
25,022
PM
HiVol
410
0
410
67
1,067
1,134
820
0
820
134
2,134
2,268
0
492
492
402
6,402
6,804
Tape
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,025
0
1,025
205
5,154
5,359
0
205
205
205
5,154
5,359
Proposed
so2
Bubb
633
0
633
126
2,761
2,887
1,899
0
1,899
378
8,283
8,661
633
253
886
378
8,283
8,661
Cont
0
0
0
0
0
0
8,350
0
8,350
1,310
6,290
7,600
8,350
0
0
1,310
6,290
7,600
CO
Cont
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
'0
0
0
. 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
°x
Cont
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
N02
Bubb
0
0
0
0
0
0
>
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cont
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Totals
1,043
0
1,043
193
3,828
4,021
12,094
0
12.094
2,027
21 .861
23.888
8.983
697
9,680
2,295
26,129
28.424
-------
3.3 Aggregate National Air Monitoring Cost Estimates
Aggregate capital requirements and annualized costs are reported in
this section by state and by EPA regional offices. Table 3-3 reports these
cost estimates under the assumption that the minimum federal air quality
monitoring system requirements will just be met. Table 3-4 gives cost
projections under the assumption that the states adhere to the network
proposals as given in their respective SIP's.
The first two cost elements shown in the group of items identified as
capital requirements, i.e., new instruments and replacement instruments,
are simply transcribed from the totals columns of Table 3-2. The same
comment is applicable to the first two items, annual capital charge and
instrument operation, among annualized costs.
The instrument housing costs were estimated by using the data generated
in compiling Table 3-1 in conjunction with the cost estimates presented in
Section 2.2.1. Initial personnel costs were similarly developed in using
the data on total numbers of instruments, as reported in Table 3-1, along
with the cost estimates indicated in Section 2.2.4. These included: (1)
documentation costs, (2) system engineering costs, and (3) system
specification costs and training costs.
The final two cost items arrayed in Tables 3-3 and 3-4 are data process-
ing and travel costs. The cost factors for each of these items are
summarized in Sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.3. These cost factors were simply
multiplied by the appropriate number of samplers or estimated number of
sites from Table 3-1.
49
-------
Table 3-3. ESTIMATED CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS AND ANNUALIZED COSTS OF IMPLEMENTING FEDERAL
AIR QUALITY MONITORING SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS
en
O
Regions and New
States or U.S. instru-
Territories merits
Region I
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
Total
Region II
New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
U.S. Virgin Is.
Total
Region III
Delaware
Dist. of Columbia
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
Total
40,381
16,435
50,625
20,649
20,800
1,899
150,789
12,009
78,194
10,641
8,983
109,827
0
3,519
0
90,974
57,690
16,700
168,883
Capital
requirements
Replace- Instru- Initial
ment in- ment personnel
struments housing costs
19,206
4,670
30,630
1,162
1,855
2,330
59,853
31 ,094
150,638
373
704
182,809
5,027
3,860
24,853
53,926
22,557
4,259
114,482
6,750
3.900
7,500
5,000
5,000
0
28,150
89,000
6,650
2,500
350
98,500
0
1,050
0
18,400
7,500
0
26,950
10,300
• 5,900
6,200
3,600
3,800
1,900
31,700
10,300
22,700
• 2,100
500
35,600
0
2,600
0
41,100
9,700
2,100
55,500
Total
76,637
30,905
94,955
30,411
31 ,455
6,129
270,492
142,403
258,182
15,614
10,537
426,736
5,027
11,029
24,853
204,400
97,447
23,059
365,815
Annual
capital
charge
23,390
6,676
34,832
4,448
4,620
2,287
76,253
30,177
71,011
2,094
2,094
105,376
4,261
4,875
23,263
62,084
28,940
.6,513
129,936
Annual ized costs
•Instru-
ment
operation
205,269
75,813
346,621
50,751
69,170
26,756
774,380
235,820
573,152
22,928
22,928
854,828
34,965
48,847
321 ,922
654,084
346,698
91 ,568
1,498,084
Data
process-
Ing
19,800
11,700
32,400
5,700
7,200
300
77,100
19,800
63,000
2,400
2,400
87,600
0
4,500
30,000
63,000
38,100
12,300
147,900
Travel
17,700
8,900
28,900
6,900
4,300
4,000
70,700
21,500
70,400
2,000
2,800
96,700
0
4,000
30,000
67,300
37,900
10,200
149,400
Total
266,159
103,089
442,753
67,799
85,290
" 33,343
998,433
307,297
777,563
29,422
30,222
1,144,504
39,226
62,222
405,185
846,468
451,638
120,581
1,925,320
-------
Table 3-3 (continued)
Regions and
States. or U.S.
Territories
Region IV
Al abama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
Total
Region V
111 inois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
Total
Region VI
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
Total
Capital
requirements
New Replace- Instru- Initial
instru- ment in- ment personnel
ments struments housing costs
77,629
11,980
77,985
0
41 ,898
0
21,100
42,322
272,914
47,144
50,900
26,971
1,173
29,995
51 ,845
208,028
4,489
3,165
9,916
19,350
267,600
304,520
6,731
19,550
14,551
17,152
1,029
11,315
9,387
14,459
94,174
57,208
28,414
17,351
21 ,645
12,021
12,122
148,761
865
17,428
8,222
6,519
95,632
128,666
12,500
2,450
24,600
0
6,400
0
2,500
7,450
55,900
4,950
5,000
4,200
350
5,250
1,050
20,800
700
0
5,000
5,000
42,500 .
53,200
15,300
' 6,800
• 18,500
0
7,600
0
4,600
6,800
59,600
12,100
• 5,600
14,700
900
16,400
. 7,400
57,100
2,600
3,300
2,100
3,800
30,400
42,200
Total
s
112,160
40,780
135,636
17,152
56,927
11,315
37,587
71 ,031
482,588
121,402
89,914
63,222
24,068
63,666
72,417
434,689
8,654
23,893
25,238
34,669
436,132
528,586
Annual
capital
charge
19,173
20,266
25,527
14,534
7,799
12,003
11,557
19,910
130,769
56,616
32,862
19,419
19,305
16,826
11,716
156,744
1,625
14,380
8,520
8,585
51,121
84,231
Annual ized cost
Instru-
. ment
operation
222,591
325,712
311,015
166,918
86,728
191,296
155,799
245,241
1,705,300
516,556
346,775
197,954
200,095
358,594
154,346
1,774,320
33,405
105,103
85,420
105,333
457,989
787,250
Data
process-
ing
23,100
26,700
33,600
21 ,300
5,100
25,000
20,700
26,700
182,200
48,000
35,700
26,400
22,500
45,000
17,100
194,700
4,800
8,100
9,600
12,600
42,300
77,400
Travel
24,700'
12,900
34,300
15,600
9,200
22,400
21,500
26,400
167,000
52,200
37,100
27,500
18,600
38,400
45,400
219,200
4,700
12,000
10,900
16,100
31 ,700
75,400
Total
289,564~i
385,578J
404,442
218,352
108,827
250,699
209,556
318,251
2,185,269
673,372
452,437
271,273
260,500
458,820
228,562
2,344,964
44,530
139,583
114,440
142,618
583,110
1 ,024,281
-------
Table 3-3 (continued)
en
ro
Regions and
States, or U.S.
Territories
Region VII
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
Total
Region VIII
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
Total
Region IX
American Samoa
Arizona
California
Guam
Hawa i i
Nevada
Total
New
instru-
ments
22,734
22,425
5,325
14,215
64,699
32,956
18,557
2,683
5,197
7,635
3,726
70,754
1,043
23,227
25,220
10,659
0
22,825
82,974
Capital
requirements
Replace- Instru- Initial
ment in- ment personnel
struments housing costs
6,664
6,298
28,364
1 ,834
43,160
5,706
4,372
619
164
10,639
619
22,119
0
17,125
89,031
0
373
6,846
113,375
4,950 .
5,000
1,400
1,750
11,700
5,350
11,750
350
1,400
1,750
700
21 ,300
350
7,100
7,700
350
0
2,500
18,000
•8,600
5,700
' 4,100
4,900
23,300
7,200
8,000
1,500
3,600
5,500
' 2,000
27,800
900
8,500
23,700
2,700
0
2,700
38,500
Total
42,948
39,423
39,189
22,699
142,859
51,212
42,679
5,152
10,361
25,524
7,045
141,973
2,293
55,952
145,651
13,709
373
34,871
252,849
Annual
capital
charge
9,629
9,189
25,372
4,133
48,323
10,807
6,802
1,064
1,111
8,442
1,257
29,483
193
18,643
83,542
1,755
532
9,772
114,437
Annual ized cost
Instru- Data
ment process- .
operation ing
143,233
118,584
250,935
65,822
578,574
123,983
78,574
22,232
22,600
106,564
26,060
380,013
3,828
189,641
687,253
15,640
11,116
95,425
1,002,903
18,000
15,600
23,400
8,400
65,400
14,400
900
3,000
3,300
11,700
3,600
36,900
600
17,700
58,800
1,500
1,500
9,900
90,000
Travel
18,200
17,200
21 ,400
7,900
64,700
17', 200
•6,600
3,100
2,400
11,200
3,100
43,600
400
17,500
78,500
2,500
1,200
11,000
111,100
Total
189,062
160,573
321,107
86,255
756,997
166,390
92,876
29,396
29,411
137,906
34,017
489,996
5,021
243.484
908,095
21 ,395
14,348
126,097
1,318,440
-------
Table 3-3 (continued)
en
CO
Capital requirements
Regions and
States or U.S.
Territories
Region X
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
U.
Total
,S. Total
New
instru-
ments
20,715
6,873
12,358
12,363
52,309
1,485,697
Replace-
ment in-
struments
619
2,900
8,018
25,187
36,724
944,123
Instru-
ment
housing
6,400
1,050
2,500
3,500
13,450
347,950
Initial
personnel
costs
. 5-, 700
4,500
' 3,400
9,200
22,800
394,100
Total
33,434
15,323
26,276
50,250
125,283
3,171,870
Annual
capital
charge
4,233
3,686
11,806
24,308
44,033
919,585
Annual i zed cost
Instru-
ment
operation
51,169
54,323
127,626
253,250
486,368
9,842,020
Data
process-
ing
6,300
7,500
12,600
24,300
50,700
1,009,900
Travel
5,600
9,500
14,500
25,400
55,000
1,052,800
Total
67,302
75,009
166,532
327,258
636,101-
12,824,305
-------
Table 3-4. ESTIMATED CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS AND ANNUALIZED COSTS OF IMPLEMENTING STATE
PROPOSED AIR QUALITY MONITORING SYSTEMS
Capital requirements
Regions and New
States or U.S. instru-
Territories ments
Region I
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
Total
Region II
New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
U.S. Virgin Isl .
Total
Region III
Delaware
Dist. of Columbia
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
Total
Region IV
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky t
111,198
28,746
332,070
72,422
16,949
36,921
598,306
38,710
494,560
188,211
8,983
730,464
65,748
71,780
192,267
140,385
153,287
25,044
648,511
86,612
19,305
100,254
393,200
Replace-
ment in-
struments
55,793
4,670
38,019
2,664
5,699
8,741
115,586
54,109
141,326
779
697
196,911
60,626
14,484
81,817
74,672
29,713
13,519
274,831
6,813
20,045
19,561
54,560
Instru-
ment
housing
21,050
7,750
58,550
26,050
21,050
3,200
.137,650
3,900
67,000
26,350
350
97,600
30,000
5,000
46,750
197,500
51,700
5,350
336,300
17,450
2,450
45,300
93,750
Initial
personnel
costs
23,700
. 6,500
43,300
16,200
9,800
5,400
104,900
8,500
106,000
28,900
500
143,900
11,300
6,300
28,700
74,900
27,300
7,500
156,000
16,500
6,700
25,200
126,660
Total
211,741
47,666
471,939
117,336
53,498
54,262
956,442
105,219
808,886
244,240
10,530
1,168,875
167,674
97,564
349,534
487,457
262,000
51,413
1,415,642
127,375
48,500
190,315
668,170
Annual
capital
charge
65,141
8,996
88,688
14,861
21 ,821
13,893
213,400
68,769
198,472
31,249
2,295
300,785.
50,916
63,670
101,498
295,022
• 52,242
29,575
592,923
20,676
20,206
34,074
116,955
Annualized cost
Instru-
ment
•operation
601 ,734
123,702
838,309
176,587
241,074
86,269
2,067,675
470,964
1,569,783
24,163
26,129
2,091 ,039
428,468
171,130
828,126
1 ,800,242
613,531
258,244
4,099,741
232,709
248,168
398,557
1,473,275
Data
process-
ing
53,400
15,300
79,200
21,300
26,100
7,200
202,500
40,800
1,689,002
21 ,300
3,300
234,300
32,400
11,100
72,000
116,700
72,300
26,400
330,900
24,000
26,400
42,000
167,700
Travel
62,800
12,800
54,000
19,600
17,600
10,700
117,500
54,700
207,000
32,000
4,400
298,100
33,384
11,600
63,000
119,500
42,600
22,800
292,884
26,800
20,900
36,800
102,600
Total
783,075
160,798
1,060,197
232,348
306,595
118,062
2,661,075
635,233
2,144,155
108,712
36,124
2,924,224
545,168
257,500
1,064,624
2,331,464
780,673
337,019
5,316,448
304,185
315,674
511,431
1,860,530
-------
Table 3-4 (continued)
en
en
Capital requirements
Regions and
States or U.S.
Territories
Region IV (cont'd)
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
Total
Region V
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
Total
Region VI
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
Total
New
instru-
ments
76,
158,
65,
130,
1,030,
177,
173,
303,
61,
8,
185,
909,
14,
23,
57,
39,
2,431,
2,566,
747
378
557
935
988
603
188
135
730
802
484
942
160
704
305
746
845
760
Replace
ment in-
struments
1,521
9,645
6,487
31,157
149,789
99,267
52,128
36,843
39,152
63,535
27,218
318,143
1,439
17,428
15,362
14,216
18,552
66,997
Instru-
ment
housing
20,300
54,950
15,650
25,600
275,450
50,650
85,650
98,200
8,550
18,550
26,050
287,650
3,900
6,050
24,250
16,400
395,700
446,300
Initial
personnel
costs
17,100
'108,300
• 19,400
39,400
359,260
31,500
58,600
65,200
7,800
55,300
. 21,100
239,500
•10,600
7,400
18,600
17,200
267,700
321 ,500
Total
115,668
331,273
107,094
227,092
1,815,487
359,020
369,566
503,378
117,232
146,187
259,852
1,755,235
30,099
54,582
115,517
87,562
3,113,797
3,401,557
Annual
capital
charge
13,906
46,691
20,545
43,565
316,618
113,083
93,112
82,223
43,266
68,774
55,387
455,845
3,832
17,706
23,150
23,176
421 ,943
489,807
Instru-
ment
operation
149,132
825,148
275,595
522,821
4,125,405
. 936,509
1,058,875
770,081
400,480
893,893
464,658
4,524,496
75,721
135,178
275,206
280,783
2,754,810
3,521 ,698
Annual ized
Data
process-
ing
17,400
105,000
37,200
63,900
483,600
88,800
111,600
82,500
43,500
124,200
47,700
498,300
12,300
11,700
33,600
40,200
215,100
312,900
cost
Travel
17,300
72,400
36,700
61,900
375,400
20,700
95,700
84,200
43,900
132,900
49,200
426,600
11,400
12,800
29,100
38,600
205,300
297,200
Total
197,738
1,049,239
370,040
692,186
5,301,023
1,159,092
1,359,287
1,019,004
531,146
1,219,767
616,945
5,905,241
103,253
177,384
361 ,056
382,759
3,597,153
4,621,605
-------
Table 3-4 (continued)
en
en
Regions and
States or U.S.
Territories
Region VII
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
Total
Region VIII
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
Total
Region IX
American Samoa
Arizona
California
Guam
Hawaii
Nevada
Total
Capital
requirements
New Replace- Instru- Initial
instru- ment in- ment personnel
ments struments housing costs
47,707
121,629
116,985
15,780
302,101
175,758
27,317
3,223
5,197
48,238
4,956
264,689
1,043
69,448
303,400
12,094
20,884
31,475
438,344
7,684
8,915
62,900
3,228
82,727
13,292
4,372
1,357
164
30,899
619
50,703
0
22,249
287,372
0
19,817
14,418
343,856
12,450
39,150
17,500
39,000
73,000
-
25,350
6,750
350
1,400
6,350
700
40,900
350
15,350
62,500
2,850
8,200
5,000
94,250
14,800
' 38,400
•13,800
5,700
72,700
16,700
8,900
1,800
3,600
13,900
. 3,400
48,300
• 900
11,100
61,500
3,200
6,100
3,600
86,400
Total
82,641
208,094
211,185
28,608
530,528
231,100
47,339
6,730
10,361
99,387
9,675
404,592
2,293
118,147
714,772
18,144
55,001
54,493
962,850
Annual
capital
charge
18,646
29,454
72,208
5,585
125,893
40,609
8,179
1,775
1,111
34,133
1,458
,87,265
193
31,411
289,632
2,027
11,119
17,319
351 ,701
Annual ized cost
Instru-
ment
operation
191,787
3,880,879
522,225
76,130
4,671,021
336,933
85,931
34,285
22,600
265,208
29,261
774,218
3,828
262,956
1,792,419
21 ,861
115,550
149,826
2,346,440
Data
process-
ing
23,700
45,900
46,200
14,100
129,900
34,500
9,600
6,000
3,300
22,800
4,500
80,700
600
24,900
119,700
2,100
11,100
17,700
176,100
Travel
21,100
22,300
47,300
15,000
105,700
35,600
7,900
6,700
2,400
15,100
3,900
71 ,600
400
31,387
151,700
2,500
7,300
20,500
213,787
Total
255,233
3,978,533
687,933
110,815
5,032,514
447,642
111,610
48,760
29,411
337,241
39,119
1,013,783
5,021
350,654
2,353,451
28,488
145,069
205,345
3,088,028
-------
Table 3-4 (continued)
Capital requirements
Regions and
States or U.S.
Territories
Region X
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
Total
U.S. Total
New
instru-
ments
9
12
20
17
59
7,550
,560
,444
,251
,717
,972
,077
Replace-
ment in-
struments
727
7,224
11,652
68,617
88,220
1,687,763
Instru-
ment
housing
15,000
2,800
5,350
6,050
29,200
1,818,300
Initial
personnel
costs
15.800
' 7,700
• 5,000
8,300
36,800
1,569,260
Total
41,087
30,168
42,253
100,684
214,192
12,625,400
Annual
capital
charge
5,588
8,102
13,853
59,922
87,466
3,021,703
Annual ized cost
Instru-
ment
operation
74,208
98,919
153,924
440,066
767,117
28,988,850
Data
process-
ing
12,000
15,000
16,500
43,500
87,000
2,536,200
Travel
12,300
17,500
17,300
54,600
101 ,700
2,360,471
Total
104,096
139,522
201,577
598,088
1,043,283
36,907,224
en
-------
CHAPTER 4: TELEMETRIC, NONTELEMETRIC, AND PORTABLE
AIR QUALITY MONITORING NETWORKS
4.1 Introduction
Air quality monitoring system configurations are limited in number
only by the imagination of the system engineers who design the system.
This is partially due to the variety of reasons for which ambient air
quality is measured: background data gathering, trend analysis, scientific
research, air quality forecasting, or one of many other reasons. Each of
these monitoring categories imposes slightly different requirements on the
overall network resulting in the number of different systems available
today. Also encouraging the variety in system selection are the hardware
manufacturers who produce systems in the form of building blocks allowing
custom configuration by the customer or the in-house engineers to produce
a system which will meet the requirements of the user without including
expensive options not needed in his particular system.
Although the number of options available to the user is large, it is
not within the scope of this chapter to describe and examine cost versus
capability tradeoffs for all system types. This section is limited to the
cost estimate of a fixed station network of various sizes and capabilities
(in terms of number of sensors). Then these figures are examined for the
effects of variations on the system, specifically the addition of telemetry
capabilities, and modifications to permit moving the sites to accommodate
flexible monitoring requirements. To accomplish this, agencies which have
implemented various systems were contacted for cost, reliability and system
capability data. The data gathered were analyzed, and representative cost
figures were determined. However, before presenting the results of this
analysis in section 4.2, the remainder of section 4.1 discusses system con-
figurations, design tradeoffs and their general effects on system performance
and costs for the alternative systems of interest.
4.1.1 Nontelemetric Systems
The basic system considered for the purpose of this study was the data
logging type system shown schematically in Figure 4-1. Here a number of
stations (or just one) are set up at remote locations for the purpose of
monitoring from only a few to as many as 25 air quality monitoring sensors.
58
-------
SENSOR
SENSOR
—
SENSOR
SCANNER
MANUAL
DATA
ENTRY
ANALOG/
DIGITAL
CON-
VERTER
CLOCK
TAP
INTE
FAC
E
E
TAPE
DECK
(record)
Q
TAPE
DECK
(playback)
COMPUTER
INTER-
FACE
COMPUTER
SYSTEM
DISPLAY
on site
central location
Figure 4-1. Block diagram of data logger type data acquisition system.
-------
Data from each of the sensors are collected by means of a scanner and fed
to an analog to digital (A/D) converter. The output of the A/D is then the
digital representation of the input signals. As indicated in Figure 4-1,
this digital representation of concentration data is one of three inputs to
the magnetic tape output. The other two are: (1) time signals from
the system clock and (2) manually entered data indicating system status.
These tapes must be removed manually and carried to a central station for
regeneration of the data. Here the data from the entire sampling period
are analyzed. This batch processing permits extensive data manipulations
and analyses for discrete sampling times. A disadvantage of this process-
ing technique is that the data are not available until the tapes are
returned for processing. This means that some of the data coded on tape
are from 1 week to 1 month old before they are observed and evaluated. This
is satisfactory for such purposes as trend monitoring for research purposes
or for compliance monitoring to determine pollutant levels near suspected
sources of high pollutant levels. But it is not at all satisfactory for
situations in which the data must be known in (or near) real time such as
in air quality forecasting or episode monitoring.
Sensors for use in this type of system are typically the same types
used for any non-laboratory use. However, increased demands are made on
the instrument stability and reliability due to the facts that (1) daily
visits may not be made to the sites if their locations are widely scattered
and (2) the data will not be observed until some later time. Thus a previous
instrument failure would result in a large quantity of lost data.
In-station calibration systems may be incorporated to add confidence
to the data by applying a zero and a span gas for a fixed interval daily to
each gas analyzer. However, since an attendant is needed to regularly
service the station to determine its operational status and to return the
data tape for processing, a calibration system (without heavier components
such as calibration gas bottles) may be carried from station to station at
a considerable cost savings with little degradation of data quality. For
this reason these systems were not priced in the typical data logger-type
systems.
There are a large number of data acquisition system variations avail-
able for this type of system. Large complex systems, with their large input
60
-------
capacities, high speed, and high sensitivity, have been pressed into
service for air quality monitoring. However, these systems, although
highly reliable, are quite expensive for air pollution data handling.
Instead, more compact units are now being sold exclusively for remote
monitoring. These units satisfy the basic requirements for a data
acquisition system. Those requirements are determined on reference
to the necessary performance parameters as listed in Table 4-1. In
the case of fixed stations, system design may be tailored to the particular
monitoring requirements of the program for which they are used, allowing
flexibility for anticipated future expansion.
4.1.2 Telemetric Systems
A second type of system configuration used in air monitoring networks
is the telemetric network shown schematically in Figure 4-2. This system
is similar to the data logging type except for one major difference: The
signals, once digitized, are passed over phone lines to a central location
some distance away. The local tape storage capability then becomes optional;
it is needed only in case of central station failure or phone line problems,.
This allows the monitoring of not only the measured air pollution parameters
but also certain important system operation indicators such as flow rates
and temperatures. This reduces the number on on-site visits and therefore
costs necessary to insure the normal functioning of the instruments. How-
ever, it does not insure that the calibrations are being done accurately;
therefore, some on-site calibration checks are still required periodically
to insure the accuracy of the data. A second improvement brought about by
the implementation of a telemetric system is an increase in the amount of
valid data being taken. This results from the fact that most instrument
malfunctions will be readily apparent soon after their occurrence, allowing
the prompt dispatching of maintenance technicians to bring the instrument
back on line.
The question of when a telemetric system should be used is not always
clearly answerable. In the case where data are needed for processing as
soon as they are collected—as in episode monitoring or air quality fore-
cast! ng--the telemetry-type systems are necessary for meeting the requirements,
However, for systems where telemetry is being considered for reasons of cost
savings, its advantage is not so clear. The costs associated with telemetry
are quite variable, depending on many things. Initial costs include not only
the cost of the telemetric equipment itself but also the incremental cost of
61
-------
Table 4-1. PERFORMANCE PARAMETERS
Input Chnraeterlst Ics
Input Lcvt'l Range - the magnitude and units of tlio input quantity
which the data acquisition system will record within the
accuracy specified (e.g., 0-1 volt).
Number and Type of Inputs - the number of Inputs for both digital
and analog input signals.
Special Purpose Input Provisions - any facilities for accepting
inputs other than data lines with a voltage representing the
measured quantity.
Manual Inputs - number and type of switch settable or hardwired
Inputs for status setting or unit identification.
Sampling Characteristics
Scan Interval or Sampling Rate - the rate at which a single channel
is scanned with the instrument in normal operation.
Programmability - capability of changing scan rate (as well as other
parameters) by local or remote means (example - by computer
control).
Conversion Characteristics
Resolution - minimum change in input level which can be dependably
detected and registered on output.
Accuracy - the maximum difference between the representation of the
input and the true input usually in terms of the full scale
reading.
Tine Annotations - means of generation of time code to be recorded with
data and the format .of that time code.
Pre-Storage Processing - the nature and extend of any pre-storage data
processing conducted within the instrument, examples - data
averaging, Integration, application of transfer function.
Data Storage
Type of Mass Storage Device - the device used for the storage of
data (example - magnetic tape cassette, one-inch paper tape).
Format of Data Stored - the format used for the data (used to
establish the compatibility of the storage device with
other data analysis systems.) Includes type of coding used
for data, density as well as the definition of the data -
(data scan Interval, order of data on tape, position of time
code, etc.)
Capacity - the quantity of data which may be kept on one storage
device.
Data Recovery - equipment and procedures necessary for data recovery and
final format of data.
Telemetry Capabilities
Data transfer rate
Control Capabilities
Number of Items within and external to the system which may
changed at remote location from the central location.
Degree of Control (on-off or continuously variable)
Quantity of data available by telemetry and type (real time data
and/or historical data.)
Installation. Operatic1.! and Maintenance Requirements
Includes considerations such as time required for set up of instrument,
skill of operators required, attendance for maintenance and
calibration required, amount of control of system available
to operator.
Physical Characteristics
Height
Size
Environmental Range - the range of temperature, humidity, and
particulatc conditions which inay be tolerated by the system
in operation.
Power Requirements
Type of power source accepted by the system
Amount of power required
Effects of a power failure (e.g. loss of data, loss of time
or automatic resumption after power return).
62
-------
Ol
CO
SENSOR
SENSOR
SENSOR
SCANNER
TAPE DECK 1
for back up |
TAPE
INTER-
FACE
ANALOG J
DIGITAL
CON-
VERTEI
CONTROL
LINES
TO
VAI VFS
•J
MODEM
MODEM
SYSTEM
INTERFACE
COMPUTER
SYSTEM
DISPLAY
SWITCHES, etc
on site
central location
Figure 4-2. Block diagram of telemetry type data acquisition system.
-------
a somewhat more complex or reliable data acquisition system. More complex
data acquisition systems are needed due to the fact that simpler systems,
while quite adequate for air quality monitoring work, are not designed for
the addition of telemetry. A second source of variation in costs arises
from variations in the size of the monitoring network. If the network is
entirely within one city, then telephone lines may be leased,providing
rather dependable and economical service. However, if a statewide network
is to be considered, leased lines that are fully dedicated to the trans-
mission of air quality data are substantially more expensive.
There are several alternative types of telemetered systems. One is
simply a standard data logger system to which telemetry is added on a
call-up basis. In this system the remote data acquisition system functions
as a data logger, storing the data on tape. The data are made available to
the central station via telemetry if the station is called. This allows an
operator at a central location to check the instantaneous operational status
of each station. Nonetheless, personnel still have to make the rounds of
the stations to pick up data tapes, make calibrations, etc., resulting in a
higher initial cost than the data logger system and a higher operating cost
than the telemetry system using dedicated lines.
A second type of telemetry system is one which employs a data logger
with read-write tape units and remote control capabilities. This enables
the operator from a central station to call each station periodically
(daily), command the deck to rewind and play back the data recorded over
the past recording period. This type of system, if reliably designed, saves
periodic trips to pick up the data tapes. This is a somewhat doubtful
savings, however, in that periodic trips are made to each station for cali-
bration or maintenance purposes anyway and no additional costs are involved
in bringing in the magnetic tape as well. The use of this system arises in
cases where data may not be needed in real time but are needed more often
than every other day--for example, in cases where air quality forecasts
are to be made twice daily and the data are needed only for those forecasts.
Here the data could be called up an hour before the forecasts are due, pro-
cessed, and displayed for evaluation. Cost savings may be realized in this
type of system if reliable phone communications to the remote sites are
available and an operating procedure is set forth to allow the telemetry
setup to do the data gathering rather than technicians on on-site visits.
64
-------
Still another variation in the telemetric systems incorporates the
option of remotely controlling devices external to the data acquisition
system at the remote site. A successful implementation of this system
is necessary before the full cost of the dedicated (or even dial-up)
systems can be offset by a savings in .labor. This system not only
saves the time costs of picking up the data and evaluating the status
of station performance but also reduces the number of calibration trips
in allowing them to be done either by computer control or, remotely,
from the central station. For this reason, it was this configuration
that was selected for the telemetric system cost estimates presented
in this chapter.
4.1.3 Station Portability
The provision for remote station portability is still another option
which may be exercised in the design of an air quality monitoring system.
Typically, the agency doing air quality monitoring is either a municipal,
county, state, or federal agency. This means that the agency may obtain
space in already existing buildings belonging to other agencies in an effort
to save the cost of several physical stations. However, this savings may
not materialize because troubles are often encountered when one tries to
install a number of samplers in already existing structures. These diffi-
culties include tailoring the installation of racks, sample manifolds, and
other hardware to the particular room being used. Consequently, each new
site location may require a unique design and the attendant high costs of
custom work. However, if the stations are assembled on skids (see Figure
4-3) or in trailers at a single location, one design can be used, yielding
a substantial savings in time expenditures for the procurement of parts and
for station assembly. For*these reasons this study incorporates only cost
estimates for shelters which may be assembled, moved on site, and then
fitted with the instrumentation. The same figures would apply for trailers
except for the additional cost of a trailer over a shelter (that increment
is approximately $3000 for the size installation discussed herein). It
should be remembered that, even though a system is portable, an additional
expense will be incurred in moving the system to a new site. This expense
can be reduced to that of manpower and utility hookup by using jacks to raise
the building and a small, flat, low trailer to slide under the building. The
65
-------
Figure 4-3. Typical installation of portable shelters on skids,
66
-------
trailer then can be towed to a new site connected to the proper utilities
and brought on-line.
Mobile vans were not considered in this study since their high ini-
tial costs make them impractical except for infrequent cases in which high
mobility is necessary.
4.2 Cost Analyses
4.2.1 Sources of Data and Assumptions
The major sources of data used in the following cost analyses are
interviews with air pollution control agency personnel and RTI's experience
in the operation of air quality monitoring instruments. Specifically, these
sources include:
1) The Allegheny County Bureau of Air Pollution Control (Pennsylvania)
which is presently operating an automatic telemetered air monitor-
ing network with remote calibration capability consisting of seven
remote stations and a central station. RTI personnel spent two
days in Pittsburg, Pa., discussing network operation and costs
with Allegheny County personnel.
2) The Research Triangle Institute's experience in installing and
operating a network of seven remote stations in Chattanooga, Tenn.,
using on-site data logging systems. This included purchasing and
installing the sensors, data loggers, and the portable shelter.
The stations have been installed and operating for over a year.
3) The State of Pennsylvania Bureau of Air Pollution which is operat-
ing a system of 17 sites in special-design trailers. Data are
collected over dedicated phone lines by a computer at the central
station.
4) The Milwaukee County Department of Air Pollution Control which
monitored pollutant levels by manual methods at points throughout
the county.
5) The St. Louis County Department of Air Pollution which operates a
telemetry type system of approximately seven stations. Data are
obtained by means of a computer at a central location, displayed,
and placed on magnetic tape for further processing.
6) New York State which utilizes time-shared computer monitoring of
multiple stations over dedicated phone lines.
67
-------
7) Current vendor files for latest computer and special electronics
costs.
The assumptions made and the network configurations used in the cost
analysis are summarized in Table 4-2. A summary of the cost data is con-
tained in Table 4-3. Costs are divided into four categories for discussion
purposes. The four categories are 1) fixed hardware, 2) fixed non-hardware,
3) variable non-personnel, and 4) variable personnel. Cost elements in each
of these categories are now discussed in detail using an outline format.
FIXED HARDWARE
A. Remote Electronics
1. Basic Data Acquisition System - For this system it was assumed
that two to three channels of data storage are needed for each
instrument to monitor the operation of the station and the
parameter being measured. Hence, for sites with four to seven
sensors, a 16-channel system may be used while a 10-sensor site
would require a more sophisticated unit. With the addition of
telemetry, increased demands are made on the system's reliability,
scale, and capability resulting in a substantial cost increase
in the small-scale systems and yet a minor increase in large-
scale. This is due to the lack of small units with telemetry
capability inherent.
2. Remote Calibration Capability - This hardware option is avail-
able to reduce the number of on-site visits necessary to maintain
calibration. In this study the following configuration was
assumed: one $2400 removable calibration system per station
along with two mass flowmeters (for monitoring flow rates in
the system and for insuring the accuracy of calibration gas
levels).
3. Battery Backup - This equipment is necessary to preserve time
data in nontelemetry systems and to maintain answering capability
in telemetry models. A $1000 unit will generally provide this
capability while avoiding transients (temporary oscillations
in power) when circuit changeovers occur.
4. Sensors - Three basic equipment configurations were assumed.
The instrument$s
-------
Table 4-2. SUMMARY OF NETWORK CONFIGURATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS
1. Cost Categories
a) Fixed hardware
b) Fixed non-hardware
c) Variable non-personnel
d) Variable personnel
2. Network Types
a) Telemetering Networks
1) Automatic sensors
2) On-site signal conditioning
3) Telemetry
4) Automatic calibration (zero and span) capabilities
5) Automatic data analysis and printout (computer)
6) Portable remote .station
b) Non-Telemetry
1) Automatic sensors
2) On-site data logging
3) Automatic data analysis (computer)
4) Manual zero and span equipment on-site
5) Portable remote station
3. Personnel Salary Plus Benefits Range Per Year
a) Administrator 15-20K
b) Engineer/Chemist 12-16K
c) System Analyst/Programmer 8-14K
d) Technician (Maintenance/Calibration) 8-12K
e) Keypunch Operator/Secretary 5-7K
4. Sensor Combinations
a) (S=4) Sulfur dioxide ($03), fine particulate (FP), wind speed (WS),
and wind direction (WD)
b) (S=7) S02, FP, WS, WD, carbon monoxide (CO) ozone (03), and nitrogen
dioxide (N02)
c) (S=1Q) S02, FP, WS, WD, CO, Oj, N02, total hydrocarbons (THC),
temperature (T), relative humidity (RH)
5. Number of Remote Stations (L = Locations)
a) L=5
b) L=10
c) L=20 -
d) L=30
6. Cost figures; (Telemetered) nontelemetered where only one cost figure is
entered without parenthesis it is applicable to both network types, i.e.,
telemetered and nontelemetered.
7. Average distance between stations is 8 miles.
69
-------
Table 4-3. SUMMARY COST DATA
COST CLEMENT KWffl
FIXED HARDWARE
A. RMOt* Station
1. Rceot* Electronics
*) B*slc Data Act).
Syst»
b) C*llbr*tlon (Re-
fute Capability)
c) Battery Backup
2. Sensors
3. Test, Maintenance,
and Calibration
Equlpaant
4. Initial Spar**
3. Sit* Cost (Building.
S - 4
(33) 23
(40)
5
29
3.1
3.8
Building Modification.
B. Central Station • '
1. Computer with Line
Printer. Dl*c, and
Besd*r for Hag tap*
fro* Field Station*
2. Interface. Resot*
Control Unit far Re-
ceiving Cat* frosi
tetaot* Sit**
• FIXED KCCt-UARDUABE
1. Specification Prep-
aration and Prograa
Kanageaent
2. Software
(Frogracner)
3. Documentation
4. Training
9. Reaote Station
Inclination, Agency
Labor
6. Central. Station
Installation, Agency
Labor
VARIABLE, RON-FElSCeWEL
1. Utllltle*. Reoot*
It at loo (Elect.,
2. Utilities, Coswunl-
catloo
3. Transportation.
Local
4. Supplle* (p*per
and pert*)
3. Facilities (Rent)
VAUABLE, PERSONNEL
1. Administrator
2. Engineer /Ch**U at
3. 8jr»t*tl An*ly*t/
rro,r.w,
4. T.ehnleUn OUtn-
tcuac./C.l Ibr.t Ion)
3. Support- (K.y rimed/
3.c.)
TOTAU
73
(16
3
3
2
3
6
4
2. 7/yr
(0.4/yr)
1/yr
3.«/yr
1/yr
12/yr
1.9/,r
12/yr
(13/yr)
29/yr
6/yr
(«S/yr)
L • J
S - 7
(35) 23
(40)
5
»7
6.6
19.4
73
(16
5
3.
2
3
7
4
3/yr
(.3/yr)
1.1/yr
8. 4/yr
l./yr
13.5/yr
3. 3/yr
12/yr
(23/yr)
50/yr
6/y,
(122/,r) ,
*«yi all >ln,l« .am., .pply to both t.lcn
8-10 S - 4
Coot I 1000
(55) 30 (110) 30
(40) (M)
3 10
144.3 51
7.2 10.1
28.9 11.6
17.3 35
. 75 75
(16) (16)
S 3
3 3
2 2
3 S
9 12
4 ' 4
3. 3/yr 3. 4/yr
(.7J/yr) (.75/yr)
1.3/yr 2/yr
10.9/yr 6. 6/yr
l./yr 2/yr
15/yr 14/yr
4. 7/yr 3. 7/yr
12/yr 12/yr
(33/yr) (26/yr)
71/yr 3»/yr
6/yr 6/yr
1151/yr) (134/yr)
183/yr 151/yr
•trie end nont.ltB.trlc .ys
L • 10
3-7
(110) 50
(80)
10
194
13.6
38.8
35
75
(16)
5
3
2
5
13
4 •
6/yr
(1/yr)
2. 3/yr
16.8/yr
2/yr
17/64
6.3/yr
24/yr
100/yr
6/yr
(211/yr)
t«M. Th. pi
3-10
(110) 100
(80)
10
289
14.4
37.8
33
73
(16)
3
3
2
3
16
4
6. 6/yr
(1.3/yr)
3. 3/yr
21. 1/yr
2/yr
20/yr
9. 3/yr
24/yr
142/yr
6/yr
(274/yr)
>r«nth.itted i
L - 20
3-4 S • 7
,
S - 10
(220) 100 (220) 100 (220) 200
(160) (160)
20 20
116 388
20.2 27.2
23.2 77.6
70 70
73 75
• (16) (16)
3 3
3 3
2 2
3 3
24 30
4 4
10. 8/yr 14.8/yr
10.8/yr 12/yr
(1.3/yr) (2/yr)
4/yr • 4.3/yr
IJ.S/yr J3.3/yr
4/yr 4/yr
IB/yr 24/yr
. 7.5/yr 13. 1/yr
24/,r 36/yr
(33/yr) (9!/yr)
1 13/yr 200/yr
6/yr 12/yr
(2!8/yr) (397/yr)
tncrlc. ref.r *p.clflc«lly to
(160)
20
576
26.7
115.6
70
75
(16)
5
3 .
2
5
36
4
16. 2/yr
13. 2/yr
(3/yr)
3/yr
43.J/yr
4/yr
10/yr
18. 6/yr
36/yr
(133/yr)
284/yr
12/yr
(31»/yr)
647/yr
tolcMtrlc •
8-4
(330) ISO
(240)
30
174
30.3
34. •
105
73
(16)
3
3
2
3
36
4
.
16. 2/yr
(2. 3/yr)
3. 6/yr
20.3/yr
o/yr
22/yr
11. 2/yr
36/yr
(SO/yr)
174/yr
12/yr
(J.»/yr>
y«t.«.
L - 30
8-7 8-10
(330) 150 (330) 300
(240) (240)
30 30
362 667
40.8 43.1
116.4 173.9
103 105
73 73
(16) (16)
3 3
3 • 1
2 2
5 3
45 72
4 . 4
18/yr 19. 6/yr
(3/yr) (4.5/yr)
6/yr 6. 1/yr
30.3/yr 65. 3/yr
6/yr 6/yr
31/yr 40/yr
19. 6/yr 26/yr
48/yr 48/yr
(140/yr) (200/yr)
300/yr 429/yr
18/yr 11/yr
(393/yr) (70)/yr)
ti'ii-
««r.)
10
10
10
3
3
3
10
10
10
13
1O
10
10
10
10
-
70
-------
according to the pollutant or meterological parameter each
measures in Groups A, B, and C below. (The abbreviations of
Groups A, B, and C are used in Table 4-2.)
Group A Group B Group C
S02 CO Total hydrocarbons (THC)
Fine particulate (FP) 0^ Temperature (T)
Wind speed (WS) N02 Relative humidity (RH)
Wind direction (WD)
All sensor purchase cost data were displayed in Chapter 2
(Tables 2-1 through 2-8).
5. Test, Maintenance, and Calibration Equipment - Projections
of the requirements for this equipment assumed that the hard-
ware could be used at an average of five sites. This equipment
includes tools, calibration equipment and test equipment.
Increments in cost as the number of sensors increases results
from additional calibration requirements.
6. Site Cost - This category includes the costs of a heated and
air conditioned shelter installed on-site.
7. Initial Spares - Spare parts cost projections assume that one
spare instrument for every five in place is necessary to re-
place those which are down and must be returned to a central
location for repair.
B. Central Station
1. Computer - Computer costs consist of outlays for a dedicated
mini-computer with high speed input/output devices, disc
storage, and tape capability. An executive system allows
access to the data without disturbing the program which scans
the stations.
2. Interface Unit - This unit is used for telemetry only. It
received data from remote stations, decodes it, and feeds it
to the computer. Also, it allows commands from the computer
or the operator to be sent to the remote station.
71
-------
FIXED NON-HARDWARE
1. Specification Preparation and Program Management - The agency must
specify the desired present and future capabilities of the system
and general terms. Actual technical specifications will be indi-
cated by the vendor within the agency's resource constraints. The
agency must also oversee and manage the installation and checkout
of the system. Three engineering man-months at a direct rate
of $1700 per month is allotted for this purpose.
2. Software - It is assumed that most of the necessary software will
be provided by the vendor as part of the initial system. Three
months of a programmer's time were assumed necessary to gain
familiarity with the system and to write any additional programs
to put the system on-line. The programmer's time is valued at
a direct rate of $1000 per month.
3. Documentation - The documentation of the air quality monitoring
system, as new components are installed, is necessary for the
agency to operate successfully the system after the vendor has
completed installation. Two months of technical time at a direct
rate of $1000 per month are assumed necessary for this purpose.
4. Training - In going from a manual to an automatic network, some
formal training is usually desirable, if not necessary. Once the
system is operating, the cost of a continuous training program
would be included as part of the operating cost. Initial training
of one or two key personnel is estimated to cost about $5000.
5. Remote Station Installation, Agency Labor - Installing electronics,
sensors, and calibration equipment in a remote station is esti-
mated to require about two man-months of an agency technician's
time and about one man-month of vendor time. The vendor's time
is included in the initial cost of the equipment. The agency's
cost for a technician with an average annual salary plus benefits
of $9000 is estimated to be $1200, $1500, and $1800 for a station
with four, seven, and ten sensors, respectively.
6. Central Station Installation, Agency Labor - The computer, peripherals,
and interface equipment are installed and checked by the respective
vendors. The agency labor involves having a technician work with
72
-------
the vendors as a training process and for coordination of the
total installation process. The agency labor is estimated to
consist of about four man-months, equally divided between an
engineer and a technician at average annual salaries and benefits
of $14,000 and $10,000, respectively. This total cost then would
be about $4000 and would be virtually independent of the size of
the network.
VARIABLE NON-PERSONNEL
1. Utilities, Remote Station - Electrical power for the sensors, data
acquisition system, temperature control, and lights is estimated
to be about $2700 per year for a network with five stations (L=5)
and four sensors (S=4) per station. This is an average of $540
per year per station, or $45 per month per station.
2. Utilities, Communications - An automatic network with dedicated
telephone lines (local lines) has a typical cost of about $50 per
month per site. For this cost evaluation a value of $45 per month
was used for a site with 4 sensors, $50 per month for a site with
7 sensors, and $55 for a station with 10 sensors.
3. Transportation, Local - An automatic network with telemetry and
automatic remote calibration (zero and span) capabilities is esti-
mated to require an average of 1.5, 2, and 3 visits per week for
stations with 4, 7, and 10 sensors, respectively. These visits
are for performing dynamic multi-point calibrations, maintenance,
and general observations necessary to assure the collection of
valid and high-quality data.
A semi-automatic network with on-site data logging and with no
automatic calibration system is estimated to require an average
of 4, 4.5, and 5 visits per week for a station with 4, 7, and 10
sensors, respectively. All transportation costs in Table 4-3
are based on an average distance of 8 miles between stations.
4. Supplies - Expenditures for supplies such as strip chart paper,
paper tapes, and replacement parts for the sensors are estimated
to be about $675 per year, '$1,675 per year, and $2,175 per year
for a station with 4, 7, and 10 sensors, respectively.
5. Facilities - Rent and repair on a portable shelter is estimated at
$200 per year. In all the networks visited on this project, no
rent was paid for the shelter site.
73
-------
VARIABLE PERSONNEL
1. Administrator - The cost of an administrator responsible for the
functioning of a network is estimated in dollars per year as
$100 (L x S) + $10,000
where L = the number of stations in the network, and
S = the number of sensors in a station.
2. Engineer/Chemist - Engineering requirements are estimated as one
professional for each factor or fraction of a factor of L x S =
150, with an estimated yearly salary plus benefits of $14,000.
3. System Analyst/Programmer - The continuing time requirement for
programming, data processing, data validation and data storage
is estimated to require one system analyst for each factor or
fraction of a factor of L x S = 50, with an estimated yearly
salary plus benefits of $12,000 per year.
4. Technician (Maintenance/Calibration) - One technician for each
factor or fraction of a factor of L x S = 15 at an average annual
salary plus benefits of $10,000 is the estimated maintenance/
calibration requirement.
5. Support (Keypunch/Secretary) - Keypunch and secretarial time com-
bined is estimated to require one full time person for every
factor or fraction of a factor of L x S = 100. An average annual
salary plus benefits of $6000 is assumed.
4.2.2 Nontelemetric Data Acquisition Systems
Cost estimates given in Table 4-3 include those of a nontelemetric net-
work in which the air pollution data are recorded on magnetic tape at the
remote station and transported by hand to a central station for automatic
data analysis by computer. Also, all calibrations including daily zero and
span checks are performed manually. The network configuration is illustrated
in Figure 4-1.
The primary differences in costs for nontelemetric and telemetric net-
works are:
1) a higher initial installation cost for a telemetric network, and
2) a higher continuing labor cost for a nontelemetric network.
74
-------
4.2.2.1 Initial Installation and Incremental Expansion Costs. Initial
installation costs include all items under the headings of Fixed Hardware
and Fixed Non-Hardware in Table 4-2. These costs are shown graphically in
Figure 4-4. The installation cost is greater for telemetric networks than
for nontelemetric networks as can be seen from Figure 4-4. However, the dif-
ference in cost for the two types of networks decreases as the number of
sensors per remote station increases.
Since the cost figures can vary significantly from application to appli-
cation and since those given in Table 4-3 are averages of data obtained from
several networks, it was felt that a straight line approximation of the data
(as in Figure 4-4) is acceptable. This allows for interpolation of cost as
a function of the number of remote stations. Also, rough cost estimates as
a function of the number of sensors (from 4 to 10) in a remote station can
be obtained by interpolation from the vertical axis for a fixed number of
remote stations.
4.2.2.2 Personnel and Operating Costs. Operating costs are listed
under the headings of Variable, Non-Personnel and Variable Personnel in
Table 4-3 as average annual costs. Figure 4-5 is a graphical presentation
of the operating costs in terms of the number of remote stations (L) and
the number of sensors (S) per station for both telemetric and nontelemetric
networks.
Results of the cost analysis show, as can be seen from Figure 4-5,
that the operating cost is higher for the nontelemetric networks and that
the cost differential increases as the number of sensors per station in-
creases.
4.2.2.3 Total Average Annual Costs. Initial installation costs, pro-
rated over five years for sensors and calibration equipment and over ten
years for other items, are combined with the operating costs and given in
Figure 4-6. From Figure 4-6 it can be seen that:
1) telemetered networks are less costly for the time range studied,
2) the difference in costs becomes more pronounced as a) the number
of sensors per station increases and b) the number of remote
stations increases, and
3) at the lower end (corresponding to L=5, S=4) the costs are approxi-
mately the same.
75
-------
2.0,-
Telemeter ic
Nontelemeteric
S=IO
5 10 15 20 25
NUMBER OF REMOTE STATIONS OR LOCATIONS (L)
Figure 4-4. Installation cost of a network as a function of the number
of stations (L) and the number of samplers (S).
-------
0.7r
S=IO
S=7
TELEMETRIC
_./>_ NON-TELEMETRIC
10 15 20 25
NUMBER OF REMOTE STATIONS OR LOCATIONS (L)
30
Figure 4-5. Average annual operating costs of a network as
a function of the number of stations (L) and
the number of samplers (S).
77
-------
00
I.Or
co 0.8
o
0.6
o
o
0.4
<
LJ
O
UJ
0.2
0.0
Telemetric
.... Nontelcmetric
10 15 20 25
NUMBER OF REMOTE STATIONS OR LOCATIONS (L)
30
Figure 4-6. Total average annual cost of a network as a function of the number
of stations (L) and the number of samplers (S).
-------
These results are, of course, dependent on the original cost estimates.
To be valid for any one particular application, specific local cost data
would have to be used.
4.2.2.4 Reliability of Existing Systems. The important components of
a nontelemetric on-site data logging network are listed here, roughly in the
order of decreasing reliability:
1) central computer,
2) data logger, and
3) sensors.
Sensor reliability is dependent on the type of sensor in question.
Results of an instrument evaluation program conducted by RTI under contract
to EPA involving 27 ambient air analyzers, many of which were prototype
instruments based on newly developed measurement techniques or first pro-
duction models, are given in Table 4-4. Direct comparisons cannot be made
between instruments of the same type or between different types since the
evaluation time varied for the different instruments. Also, in some
instances, the evaluation time was too short to establish a meaningful
reliability figure.
From the data in Table 4-4, combined with RTI's experience with other
ambient air monitoring projects, an estimate of sensor reliability ranging
from 0.9 to 0.95 (i.e., 5 to 10 percent downtime) for a typical air pollu-
tion network seems reasonable.
Data logging systems also vary in reliability. For a data logging sys-
tem of fixed capability, increased reliability can generally be obtained at
2
additional costs. One ambient air monitoring program conducted by RTI and
composed of 7 remote stations operating for 1 year showed that 78 percent of
the data could be recovered from the data loggers. After minor engineering
C. E. Decker, T. M. Royal, and J. B. Tommerdahl, "Field Evaluation of New
Air Pollution Monitoring Systems," Final Report, Research Triangle Institute,
Contract No. CAP-70-101, Environmental Protection Agency, 1972.
2
C. E. Decker, T. M. Royal, and J. B. Tommerdahl, "Program for Upgrading the
N02 Instrumentation Employed in the 1972 Chattanooga N02 Exposure Study,"
Final Report, Research Triangle Institute CRC-APRAC Project No. CAPM-10-71,
Coordinating Research Council.
79
-------
Table 4-4. OPERATIONAL SUMMARY OF AMBIENT AIR ANALYZERS
AmK4 ^\w+-
n Downtime
Bendix Env. Sci. 0,
Bendix Process 03
RTI (Solid Phase) 03
Dasibi 03
Mast 0
X
Technicon 0,,
X
Beckman Ow
X
Beckman N02
Technicon N02
Thermo Electron N02
Aerochem NO
Beckman NO
Thermo Electron NO
Beckman S02
Leeds & Northrup S02
Mel par S02
Philips S02
Pollution Monitor S02
Technicon S02
Tracer S02
Technicon H0S
c.
Tracer H2S
Beckman THC
Power Design THC
Beckman CO
Mine Safety Appliances
Beckman CH/,
Number of
Days Tested
94
74
185
32
256
256
65
154
90
65
146
84
65
95
184
260
260
124
90
205
90
199
148
139
148
CO 124
148 .
ruiiu i CIIL
Monitoring
Time (%)
94.7
94.3
94.1
98.5
94.2
87.5
90.0
81.1
78.4
82.1
82.8
41.5
83.6
94.9
93.5
93.5
86.0
57.3
74.4
67.0
47.3
67.0
72.0
85.0
72.0
82.5
72.0
Ca libra
Time (
2.9
2.4
2.7
1.4
3.3
4.5
5.5
5.9
3.6
6.4
2.9
33.9
6.9
3.6
2.6
3.0
2.4
2.8
4.0
2.7
1.9
2.7
2.1
1.0
2.1
3.7
2.1
2.4
3.3
3.2
0.1
2.5
8.0
4.5
13.0
18.0
12.5
14.3
24.6
9.5
1.5
3.9
3.5
11.6
39.9
21.6
30.3
49.2
30.3
25.9
14.0
25.9
13.8
25.9
80
-------
modifications to the systems, a 90-percent recovery is expected for the
following year. It is felt that the reliability of percent of recovered
data should exceed 90 percent in a typical network.
4.2.3 Tel ernetrie Systems
Table 4-3 also includes estimates for operation of a telemetric net-
work as illustrated in Figure 4-2. In this network an automatic zero and
span calibration system, controlled by a central computer, is used in each
remote station. Real time air pollution data are transmitted over dedicated
phone lines from the remote station to a central station.
4.2.3.1 Initial Installation and Incremental Expansion Costs. Initial
installation costs are given in Table 4-3 and are summarized in Figure 4-4.
See subsection 4.2.2.1 for further discussion.
4.2.3.2 Personnel and Operating Costs. Operating costs are listed in
Table 4-3 and presented graphically in Figure 4-5. See subsection 4.2.2.2
for further discussion.
4.2.3.3 Total Average Annual Costs. Total average annual costs are
given in Figure 4-6. See subsection 4.2.2.3 for further discussion.
4.2.3.4 Reliability of Existing Systems. In order of decreasing
reliability, the major components of a telemetric monitoring network may
be ranked:
1) central computer,
2) telemetric system, and
3) sensors.
In networks where real time data are transmitted to a central computer
for analysis, it is necessary to have a back-up unit to record the data for
future analysis in case of computer malfunctions. Such a system avoids
data losses due to computer malfunctions and results only in an inability
to obtain real time data.
The largest source of data loss attributable to the telemetry system
is the telephone lines used to transmit the data. It is not uncommon to
lose 5 percent of the data due to phone line deficiencies. However, these
data can usually be recovered from the station strip chart recorder.
4.2.4 Portable/Mobile Station Costs
Portable, as used here, implies that the station can be picked up with
a crane or with jacks for loading on a trailer or truck for transporting to
81
-------
another location. A mobile station implies that the structure is on wheels.
For this analysis only non-motorized mobile stations, such as trailers, are
considered.
The portable/mobile stations are equipped for connection to regular
electrical power lines. It is not recommended that a station use its own
power supply due to the possibility of influencing the pollutant levels
being measured.
4.2.4.1 Portable Station. A portable shelter 8'W x 12'L x 7'H as
shown in Figure 4-3 can be purchased and placed on site for $2500 to $3500.
$3500 was the average cost experienced in placing 7 stations in Chattanooga,
Tennesse, and is the cost given by the Allegheny County Bureau of Air
Pollution Control for installing portable stations in and around Pittsburg,
Pennsylvania. Larger shelters would, of course, cost more.
4.2.4.2 Mobile Stations. Allegheny County had some of its telemetric
remote stations in trailers. The initial cost of such a station was approxi-
mately $6500 compared to $3500 for the portable station. Unless the station
is expected to be moved quite frequently, say once every six months, the
extra cost is not justified. In many instances the portable stations are
as easy and as cheap to move as are the mobile stations.
82
-------
CHAPTER 5: BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bertrand, Rene R. A Study of Markets for Air Pollution Measurement
Instrumentation 1971-1980. A Report to the Environmental
Protection Agency under contract No. CPA22-69-154. Linden, N.J.:
Esso Research and Engineering Company, 1971.
Brodovicz, B. A., Jr., V. H. Sussman, and G. B. Murdock. "Pennsylvania's
Computerized Air Monitoring System," Journal of the Air Pollution
Control Association, XIX, No. 7 (July 1969), pp. 484-89.
"Environmental Protection Agency Regulations on National Primary and
Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards," Federal Register. XXXVI,
No. 228 (November 25, 1971), pp. 22369-22577.
Field Operations Guide for Automatic Air Monitoring Equipment. A Report
to the Environmental Protection Agency under contract No.
CPA-70-124. Cincinnati: PEDCo-Environmental Specialists, Inc.,
1972.
Hickey, H. R., W. D. Rowe, and F. Skinner. "A Cost Model for Air Quality
Monitoring Systems," Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association,
XXI, No. 11 (November 1971), pp. 689-93.
Hochheiser, Seymour, Franz J. Burmann, and George B. Morgan. "Atmospheric
Surveillance: the Current State of Air Monitoring Technology,"
Environmental Sciences and Technology, V, No. 8. (August 1971),
pp. 678-684.
Keenan, W. H., et al. Destination: Clean Air, An Approach for Systems
Evaluation of Air Monitoring Network Project Grant Applications.
A Report to the National Air Pollution Control Administration under
contract No. F19628-68-C-0365. Washington: the Mitre Corporation,
1969.
Kovalick, Walter W., Jr. "Air Pollution Instrument Markets," Instrumen-
tation Technology. XX, No. 2 (February 1973a), pp. 29-32.
Kovalick, Walter W., Jr. "The Demand for Air Monitoring Instruments,"
Pollution Engineering, September 1973b, pp. 37-40.
"National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards," Federal
Register. XXXVI, No. 84 (April 30, 1971).
"Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation
Plans," Federal Register, XXXVI, No. 158 (August 14, 1971).
83
-------
CHAPTER 5: BIBLIOGRAPHY—continued
Schulze, Richard H. "The Economics of Environmental Quality Measurement,"
Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, XXIII, No. 8
(August 1973), pp. 671-75.
Silver, Sidney L. "Electronics Helps Fight Air Pollution," Electronics
World, September 1971, p. 41 ff.
Skinner, F. L., et al. Destination: Clean Air, Air Quality Monitoring
Network Cost Approximation Model. A Report to the National Air
Pollution Control Administration under contract No. F19628-68-C-0365.
Washington: the Mitre Corporation, 1970.
Smith, Donald R., Norman 6. Edmisten, and Dan J. deRoeck. "System for
Implementing Comprehensive Air Pollution Control Programs," Journal
of the Air Pollution Control Association, XXII, No. 12 (December 1972),
pp. 943-49.
84
-------
Appendix A: FEDERAL AIR QUALITY SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENTS
Table A-l summarizes the minimum requirements that must be achieved
by all regional air quality monitoring networks. The reference methods,
required sampling frequencies, and site requirements are indicated by
pollutant and by regional priority classification.
Table A-l. AIR QUALITY SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM MEASUREMENT,
SAMPLING, AND SITE REQUIREMENTS
Classification
-. of region
Pollutant
Measurement method ' Minimum frequency of sampling
Itegion population
Minimum number of utr
quality monitoring sites b
II
Sulfur dloiide ...........
\
Carbon monoxide .......
. Photochemical oxldants.
Nitrogen dioxide ........
Suspended particulars . .
Sulfur dioxide ...........
Tape sampler One sample every 2 hours
. Pararosaniline or equivalent •>. One 24-lmur sample every C days
(gas bubbler).*
I Suspended partlculates High volume sampler One21-hoursamplecvcry6days •_ Less than 100.000 4.
' 100,000-1,000.000... 4+0.6 per 100,000 population."
1.000,001-5,000.000 T.5+0.25 per 100,000 popul»llon.<
Above 5,000,000 12+0.16 per 100.000 population."
i One per 250,000 population <• up
to eight sites.
Less than 100,000 3.
100,000-1,000,000 -.'.5+0.5 rx-r 100,000 population.«
1,000,001-5.000.000 fi+0.15 per 100,000 population.'
Above 5.IXKI.OOO 11+0.05 per 100,000 population.'
Continuous Less than 100.000 1.
100,000-5,000.000 1+0.15 per 100.000 population.
Above 5.000,000 0+0.05 per 100,000 imputation.
Lesstban lOO.dOO 1.
100,000-5,000,1100 1+0.15 per 100,000 population.
Above 6.000.000 0+0.05 per 100,000 population.
Less than 100,000 ... 1.
100,000-5,000.000 1+0.15 per 100,000 population.
Above 5,000,000 fi+0.05 per 100,000 population.
Less than 100.0(10 3.
100.000-1.000.000 4+0.0 per 100,01X1 population.'
Above l.OUO.OOO . .. 10.
3.
1.
3.
Nondlspersive infrared or
equivalent.'
Gas phase chemllumlneseneo
or equivalent.'
.' 24-hour sampling method
(Jacobs-IIochhciscr
method).
. High volume sampler
Tn|>e sain pier
Pararosatiilm? or equivalent il_
Continuous.
Continuous.
One 24-hour sample every 14
days (gas bubbler).1-
III".
Suspended partlculates—
Sulfur dioxide
High volume sampbr
Pararosanilinc or equivalent d.
Onn 24-hour sample every 6 days • .
One sample every 2 hours
One 24-hour sample every 6 days
(gas bubbler).*
Cont limons
One.'.'4-hoursamplpevery Odays •.
One 21-hour sample every ti days
(gas bubbler)."
• Equivalent to 01 random samples per year.
b Equivalent to 26 random samples per year.
. • Total population of a region. When required number of samplers Includes a fraction, round-off to nearest whole number.
..' <• Equivalent methods ar-1 .(1) Gas Chronmtographic Separation—Flame Photometric Detection (provided Teflon Is used throughout the Instrument system In parts exposed
to the air stream), (2) Flame Photometric Detection (provided Interfering .sulfur compounds present In significant quunlltK<< are removed), (3) C'uiilonietrlc Detection (provided
oxidizing and reducing Interferences such as Oi. NOj, and HjS are removed), and (4) the automated Pararosanillna Procedure.
* Equivalent method ts Gas Chromatographic
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-450/3-74-029
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Cost of Monitoring Air Quality in the
United States
5. REPORT DATE
December 1973
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
A.K. Miedema, C.E. Decker, F. Smith, J.H. Whit
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Research Triangle Institute
Research Triangle Park
North Carolina 27711
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
2AH137
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-1096 Task No. 3
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Environmental Protection Agency
Monitoring and Data Analysis Division
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
27711
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT '•
Two sets of aggregate national air quality monitoring costs are estimate
The first set projects the costs of implementing the minimum federal
air quality surveillance requirements. It is estimated that $3.2
million incremented capital will be necessary to complement existing in-
struments if such a network is to become operative in 1974. The
annualized cost to operate the network is estimated to be $12.8 million.
The second set projects costs of implementing the state-proposed net-
works. An incremental capital cost for instruments is estimated to be
$12.6 million to complement existing networks. The annualized cost to
operate the proposed networks is $36.9 million.
Analysis of portable and automated air quality monitoring stations in-
dicate that telemetric stations are less costly than logging systems.
An extensive table of costs for each state is included.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
Air Quality
Monitoring
Cost Analysis
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS {ThisReport)
21. NO. OF PAGES
20.
93
*TTY tLASS'(This-page)
nclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
86
------- |